PDA

View Full Version : Who should be our next Commander in Chief?



Christine
13 Aug 04,, 11:28
From everything I’ve seen, read and watched I am not sure anymore about who is the best man to lead our country.

Both main options have their flaws and qualities (yes guys, admit and agree with me on that much). Besides the hard times that we are now living in, I think this year’s election could become a turning point for our nation, for better or worse. If we take a look at Kerry, we can honestly say that we do agree with him that our economy is not in the greatest shape ever. But it isn’t Bush or this Administration’s fault. It has been scientifically proven that after long periods of prosperity, deficits come in, whether we like it or not, it is part of the economy’s cycle or so they say. So we can’t blame Bush for our present economy/recession but we can thank him neither. Because going to war in simple terms and to middle class citizens means more taxes. The following are some of the reasons why Democrats believe Bush should not be reelected:

• Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.
• Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;
• Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.
• Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.
• Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.
• Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.

However the criticism continues from Bush’s campaign people, their biggest point is that Senator Kerry keeps flip flopping on issues such as going to Iraq, sending our troops, gay marriage and abortion. Democrats believe that Kerry is our best choice as Commander in Chief because he is a war veteran himself (even though it happened 30 years ago and the scenario was completely different); he has more knowledge on international affairs. On the other hand Republicans have a pile of Kerry’s voting record- and that speaks for itself, no need to go into it deeper. Democrats insist that Kerry understands the challenges that our troops face in the 9/11 post era.

Our President and candidate from the Republican Party for this year’s election accepts that there is a lot of anger and that we are living in very serious and dangerous times. Most of the time our President is giving constant explanations for every decision we make in regards to our foreign policies.

He also admits that most people in the States care about their families and the economy. But that we are also concerned about what our government is doing to secure our country. The debate should be, for this year’s election, about who is the best to lead war. It’s imperative to trial terrorists overseas before they hit us at home.

George W. Bush believes that the United States has the obligation to lead, through coalition ( but we went to war alone). He maintains that not only the U.S. government believed that there were weapons of mass destruction but so did other nations. And so our mission from finding weapons of mass destruction has switched to free Iraq, to complete our mission in order to make sure that our military men and women don’t die in vain. Mr. Bush stated in Larry King’s exclusive that right now there are 30 nations in Iraq, to support the actions of our military and to help rebuild that country.

Comments: Is it worth it? By freeing Iraq, are we free from terrorism? The truth is that Iraq is in the heartland of the Middle East, therefore Sadan Hussein could have become a good asset for Al Qaida’s network if he would have remained in power. Some may argue that bin Laden actually despised Hussein and such alliance would never have happened. However, Al Qaida’s network is wider than just the ideas of bin Laden…so we will never know the answer to that remote possibility. Additionally we are just beginning; Iraq is one of our first steps but not the entire formula. On the other hand, we should have finished our work and mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan before undertaking other targets.

Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil. They are two men, with interesting backgrounds but have made mistakes too. One last question and statement: Are we going to vote this year with the principle of: “Who is the best man” or “which one is a lesser evil?” (I am not saying that one of them is evil- it is just a term that is commonly used.) . This is also not about turning it into a philosophical problem. My question is simply: Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium; no anarchist answers are welcomed. :rolleyes:

Confed999
13 Aug 04,, 12:19
no anarchist answers are welcomed.
Guess I'm not allowed to comment. :(

ChrisF202
13 Aug 04,, 13:59
George W Bush no doubt about it. John Kerry is a serial lier, a socialist, and a serial tax raiser.

Praxus
13 Aug 04,, 15:50
• Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.

The Government shouldn't be funding any of these.

The fact that you would even suggest such a thing shows an enourmous cognative failure on your part.


• Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;

It shouldn't, public education should be destroyed as it has nothing to do with the moral purposes of Government.


• Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.

The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes. All taxes should be annihalated as coercion is immorall. The Government should be payed for though contract fees and criminal penalties.



• Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.

Why?



• Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.

I guess this explains why there hasn't been a terrorist attack in 3 years. They were so intimidating by our massivly open borders they just gave up.



• Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.

How about letting the market do it instead of looting in the name of "clean air".


Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil.

What you fail to realize is that it is about good and evil. Both canadites are evil on an unprecedented level for American presidents. Bush just happens to be less evil and thus the practicle canadite.

Bill
13 Aug 04,, 15:59
The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

Are you a socailist christine?

Kerry has been hailed by Gen. Giap, commander of the communist N. Vietnamese Army, as being instrumental in the Communists victory in Vietnam. He is considered a war hero to them. A picture of him hangs in a place of honor in the vietnam victory museum in hanoi. On top of that, he is an admitted war criminal, and wrongly accused his fellow sailors of commiting attrocities in Vietnam. Accusations that he has never backed up with a single ounce of proof.

Kerry is the last man we need running this war. He is the very worst of what an American can be. A liar, cheat, and fraud.

His is also the ultimate flip-flop man.

Julie
13 Aug 04,, 16:52
Oh come on......there are U.S. soldiers on trial right now for war crimes they committed in Iraq. The U.S. military training instructors pump these guys up to go somewhere and kick some ass, and when they get carried away, the U.S. Government says, uh, "you shouldn't have done that," and treat them like criminals. wtf?

SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy. Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?

No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.

No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.

These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.

Praxus
13 Aug 04,, 19:13
SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy. Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?

I guess the confiscation of private oil wells(yes I know it was done before his leadership but it was still his Government to be), and the attempted murder of the president of the United States don't count?

What about funding for terrorism against the United States and exspecially Israel?



No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.

See M21Sniper has been in combat and has been shot at. He knows all about being in Combat. Believe me Kerry's motives has nothing to do with sparing the soldiers from psychiatric trauma.



No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.

The enemy has initiated force against us and we have the moral right to kill them all.



These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.

What a complete non-seqituor.

Bill
13 Aug 04,, 19:23
Forget it Praxus, just another leftist socailist fool.

Miss, you can speak about what drill instructors 'put in your head' once you've actually been in the military. Until then, allow me to inform you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Kerry is a disgrace to the uniform of the united states military. He is a liar, an opportunist, and a socailist.

And he is a national war hero for the OTHER side in the war he fought in.

Miss, you can jam John F'ing Kerry where the sun don't shine.

mtnbiker
13 Aug 04,, 21:12
now back to your regularly scheduled programming..... ;)

Christine, honestly, nice post. I would have to differ with you on the fact that this election is difficult though. If you were to subtract the war on terrorism or if 9/11 had never happened you might have a case. In my mind it is very simple.

Right now nothing else matter except the war on terrorism. Everyting else can wait. If we lose our way of life, none of the other things make a difference. This I believe is the fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry at the moment. Bush knows and understand that we are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy our very way of life. Kerry, whom I consider part of the extreme left of his party, does not view this as a war. I'm not sure he even takes this seriously. It's almost as if he believes this all started when Bush became President and would all go away if Bush went away. No matter how loud they protest, the Clinton administration did not take terrorism or al Qaeda seriously. There is this scary, head in the sand, maybe it will all go away if we don't look at it, attitude on the far left. Don't get me wrong, I'm not indicting all Democrats. A significant number get it(Lieberman, Zell Miller, etc). It's that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the far left so much that I've begun to look at Joseph Biden as a moderate Democrat.

As far as some of the other things in your post.

Health Care - Stem cell research. This is one the main stream press has jumped on and manipulated w/o any fact or research. For starters, Pres Bush does not support EMBRYONIC stem cell research. The Dem's and the press have lumped it all together and have jumped on this "magic pill" bandwagon that stem cells may the cure all. For starters, there is no research that shows stem cells can cure or may be able to cure Alzheimers or anything else. It's merely a hypothesis that everyone has jumped on as fact. Early research so far in mice on stem cells have shown serious problems down stream(ie. future generations) including birth defects and high rates of cancers. The research that may actually be beneficial is in T-cells, which are showing some of the benefits people are touting about stem cells.

Education - Hasn't this administration increased funding for education by 40%? Haven't test scores dramatically increased under this adminstration. Letter from the education secretary. http://www.ed.gov/news/opeds/edit/2003/10242003.html

Taxes - misnomer, misrepresentation and flat out wrong that the tax cuts went to the top 1% and no one else. Facts not in evidence. If you want the number on this and the last 20 years and how the tax burden has actually increased on the top 1% and the top 10% ask me and I will post.

Security - of course we are safer. This idea that we have done nothing and there are no changes is ridiculous. There hasn't been an attack since 9/11. Do people think that is because they haven't wanted to do something else? How many arrests have there been in the US in just the last 2 weeks alone. The gal in Texas on a S. Africa passport that they said was a big fish, the guy in N Carolina and the group in upstate NY that were trying to buy a rocket launcher spring to mind.


Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium
So, to answer your last question, it's clearly Bush. The economy is on track, he has shown to be a tremendous leader through adversity. He and his adminstration haven't done everything perfect, nor do I agree with everything they have done, but Kerry's track record doesn't speak very well and he hasn't shown us any reason to think that he would be any different in the White House.

ZFBoxcar
13 Aug 04,, 22:22
The Government should be payed for though contract fees and criminal penalties.

How much money do you think that would raise? Enough for the military, the police, the prisons, roads, and administration (yes, under your ideal government there would be much less to administrate, but there would still be some)? I really doubt that.


It shouldn't, public education should be destroyed as it has nothing to do with the moral purposes of Government.

I thought we delt with this issue when you withdrew your proposal for indentured service.


How about letting the market do it instead of looting in the name of "clean air".

Here is an excerpt from a site that explains why that won't work, there could be flaws in it, but I am not an expert on electricity production or the chemical composition of oil, but it seems to make some sense. It begins by proposing a reason why we shouldn't worry and then refuting it.


I don't think there is really anything to worry about. According to classical economics, when one resource becomes scarce, people get motivated to invest in a replacement resource. When the price of oil gets too high, renewable energy will become profitable and companies will begin investing in it.

Classical economic theory works great for goods within an economy. Relying on it to address a severe and prolonged energy shortage, however, is going to prove disastrous. Classical economics works well so long as the market indicators arrive early enough for people to adapt. In regards to oil, market indicators will likely come too late for us to implement even the modest solutions we have available. Once the price of oil gets high enough that people begin to seriously consider alternatives, those alternatives will become too expensive to implement on a wide scale. Reason: oil is required to develop, manufacture, transport and implement oil alternatives such as solar panels, biomass, and windmills.

There are many examples in history where a resource shortage prompted the development of alternative resources. Oil, however, is not just any resource. In our current world, it is the precondition for all other resources, including alternative ones. To illustrate: as of the winter of 2004, a barrel of oil costs $38. It would cost in the range of $100-$250 to get the amount of energy in that barrel of oil from renewable sources. This means that an energy company won't be motivated to aggressively pursue renewable energy until the cost of oil doubles, triples, or quadruples. At that point, our economy will be close to devastated. Our ability to implement whatever alternatives we can think of will be permanently eliminated. In effect, we will be a lifeless barge of a nation floating on some very rough seas.

In pragmatic terms, this means that if you want your home powered by solar panels or windmills, you had better do it soon. If you don't have these alternatives in place when the lights go out, they're going to stay out.

The “invisible hand of the market” is about to bitch-slap us back to the stone age.

The oil companies are so greedy, they will come up with a solution to keep making money, right?

Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer. Corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world, not to serve their country, not to clean up the environment, not to bring glory to God, not to anybody but the corporation. For all intents and purposes, this means it is illegal for an oil executive to aggressively pursue renewable energy. Occasionally, a company will stroll out a "renewable energy" initiative, but this is almost always more for publicity and public relations purposes than it is for profit.

The truth is that you probably don’t want the oil companies to aggressively pursue renewable energy. The profit margin of renewable energy is so poor that if oil companies attempted to pursue it, they would quickly go bankrupt. This would cause a collapse of the stock market, which would result in an economic meltdown.

Furthermore, the oil companies are likely to profit from the initial stages of the crash. How? Simple — say, for example, that in February 2004, it takes $10 to extract and refine a barrel of oil. If a company sells that same barrel in March 2004, they will likely fetch about $38 for it. However, if they wait until the oil crash hits hard, they may be able to sell that same barrel for considerably more.

Expecting the oil companies, the government, or anybody else to solve this problem for us is simply suicidal. You, me, and every other "regular person" needs to be actively engaged in addressing this issue if there is to be any hope for humanity.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageThree.html

Praxus
13 Aug 04,, 22:56
This speak is unrealistic at best. The largest percentage of oil we could of used is around 35%. This is the maximum ammount of oil companies have been able to pump out and still remain profitable. New technologies being designed by these companies are going to move it up to around 50%. So there is at least 75% of the world's oil supply still left in the ground.

There is no evidence to suggest that the market could not adjust to the lack of oil. If the oil wells start getting real low, the market will force them to invest in other technologies. Many of these technologies are now available but not in wide use.

The current "oil crises" is artificially created by left wing politicians who refuse to drill for oil in a peice of Alaska the size of Dulles Airport that contains several billion barrels of oil if not more. This kind of thing is not limited to Alaska, it happens all over the country.


How much money do you think that would raise? Enough for the military, the police, the prisons, roads, and administration (yes, under your ideal government there would be much less to administrate, but there would still be some)? I really doubt that.

Before the dawn of the 20th century the income of the Government was less then 10% of the GDP in peace time and this payed for the moral purposes of Government and then some. A 5-8% contract fee could raise enough money for all legal purposes of Government.

The building of roads beyond matters of defense is not part of the Governments job.


I thought we delt with this issue when you withdrew your proposal for indentured service.

No we didn't. I presented one idea without doing proper research witch you debunked. That in no way delt with my view that public schools should be gotten away with.

There are several means of going to school in a Capitalist system...
1.) Private Schools (Either Religious or non-religious)
2.) Home-Schooling
3.) For Poorer Families: A "Union" of poorer families that put their money together to pay for their childrens education.


Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer. Corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world, not to serve their country, not to clean up the environment, not to bring glory to God, not to anybody but the corporation. For all intents and purposes, this means it is illegal for an oil executive to aggressively pursue renewable energy. Occasionally, a company will stroll out a "renewable energy" initiative, but this is almost always more for publicity and public relations purposes than it is for profit.


Only in a non-capitalist country would other non-oil companies not be able to invest in "renewable" resources. If the price of oil gets to high and gas prices get really high. Then tell me why would other companies not invest in renewable resoruces when they could make a crap load of money by taking away buisness from the oil companies.

This being said you have not adress the moral issue. The only alternitive to letting the market handle the situation is to loot and pillage. Do you support this alternitive?

ZFBoxcar
13 Aug 04,, 23:24
There is no evidence to suggest that the market could not adjust to the lack of oil. If the oil wells start getting real low, the market will force them to invest in other technologies. Many of these technologies are now available but not in wide use.

I did not include this in the excerpt cause I thought the one I put in was more appropriate, but they also argue that when easily available oil runs low, companies will scour the Earth for all the harder-to-pump oil, which will mean that things will keep running smoothly, if milidly more expensive. However, because of this prolonging of the production plateau, when we reach the end of the plateau, it won't be the steady decline which would result in market forces taking action, it will be like falling off a cliff instead, because we won't have the energy sources available to mass build the alternative energy infrastructure.


The current "oil crises" is artificially created by left wing politicians who refuse to drill for oil in a peice of Alaska the size of Dulles Airport that contains several billion barrels of oil if not more. This kind of thing is not limited to Alaska, it happens all over the country.

Yes, the CURRENT "oil crisis" is created by the left. But thats got nothing to do with the major crisis that may or may not be looming.



The building of roads beyond matters of defense is not part of the Governments job.


Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?


Before the dawn of the 20th century the income of the Government was less then 10% of the GDP in peace time and this payed for the moral purposes of Government and then some.

There were still taxes, they were much lower, but they still existed.


3.) For Poorer Families: A "Union" of poorer families that put their money together to pay for their childrens education.

That works if you have 1 teacher for like 50 kids, textbooks from 1862, remove several subjects from the curriculum, and operate out of a cardboard box...okay so I'm exagerating a little, but the gap between the private education and the "union" education would be so vast as to make class mobility exceedingly difficult.


Only in a non-capitalist country would other non-oil companies not be able to invest in "renewable" resources. If the price of oil gets to high and gas prices get really high. Then tell me why would other companies not invest in renewable resoruces when they could make a crap load of money by taking away buisness from the oil companies.

That will eventually happen. The argument that the site makes is that by the time it becomes worthwhile to do so, the energy required to construct the alternatives will be so expensive as to make it nearly impossible. Right now though, oil is a hell of a lot cheaper than anything else. Wind and solar are extremely inefficient. Fusion as of now, requires more energy to sustain the reaction than it produces. If fusion could be made to actually produce energy rather than consume it, and if this breakthrough comes relativly soon, then hurrah, our problems our solved. If it takes too long though, its no longer viable because of the cost in oil-energy to mass produce it.


This being said you have not adress the moral issue. The only alternitive to letting the market handle the situation is to loot and pillage. Do you support this alternitive?

You know, somehow I would not lose sleep over taxing our way out of an oil based economy set to collapse and kill millions due to both the lack of energy and the societal break down that would ensue, which would definitly result in a lot more looting and pillaging. I am morally opposed to most taxation, but I am even more opposed to the end of civilization. I know you don't think that would happen, but keep in mind I am adressing the moral issue. If I didn't genuinly believe in an impending crisis I would fully support a market solution. Assume for a minute that this crisis will happen, would you be willing to have it happen so long as the government doesn't find a solution by taking taxes?

Officer of Engineers
14 Aug 04,, 04:41
Well, I was a Canadian soldier who had served alongside with the USArmy and if I might be allowed, I would like to answer your questions.


SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy.

Simple, how many were charged even by their enemies on any GC violation? If you reach over a 1000, I would be extremely surprised.


Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense,

You are not a presiding authority on the GC. I, however, am.


and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?

He tried to assassinate George Bush Sr in Kuwait.


No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....

But we can and do set moral, ethical, and honourable standards to which all soldiers and especially their leaders are expected and demanded to live up to.


maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.

Ray, M21, and myself will have terrible memories and dreams for the rest of our lives. However, we did the job our countries asked and we did the job so that no one else would have to, and no one else will have to endure our memories and dreams, especially you.


No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.

But military discipline is. I've lost people under my command. I didn't go crazy and neither did my people.


These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.

It did not happen to me nor my people nor the people in my battle group.

Bill
14 Aug 04,, 07:06
I never commited anything remotely resembling an attrocity, and it is highly offensive to have someone who doesn't even know me try to tell me that 'you all do that'.

No, only dishonorable swine like Kerry do that.

ChrisF202
14 Aug 04,, 14:01
Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?
I belive its up to the towns/villages, counties, states, etc who use a private contracter to do the actual building.

Praxus
14 Aug 04,, 15:40
That works if you have 1 teacher for like 50 kids, textbooks from 1862, remove several subjects from the curriculum, and operate out of a cardboard box...okay so I'm exagerating a little, but the gap between the private education and the "union" education would be so vast as to make class mobility exceedingly difficult.

This "union" would be to pay for private schools or the supplies for home schooling if the parents are intelligent. You have to remember that the price of going to private school would be very small. Because there are no taxes to speak of and the shear ammount of people attending private schools would drop the price per student. You also have to remeber there would be all types of private schools, since the chericulum(sp?) is not dictated by the state. So there could be an all engineering school(etc...) if that peaks the childs interest.


Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?

Every road outside of ones required for national defense should be privately built and tolled. Given the fact that building roads could not be a very profitable thing, this would actually encourage alternate means of transpertation and inspire innovation to allow it to become more profitable.


I did not include this in the excerpt cause I thought the one I put in was more appropriate, but they also argue that when easily available oil runs low, companies will scour the Earth for all the harder-to-pump oil, which will mean that things will keep running smoothly, if milidly more expensive. However, because of this prolonging of the production plateau, when we reach the end of the plateau, it won't be the steady decline which would result in market forces taking action, it will be like falling off a cliff instead, because we won't have the energy sources available to mass build the alternative energy infrastructure.

This is not true, we have means of artificially producing oil from dead animals and plants. If we ran out of oil(which is highly unlikely to happen for the next 50 or so years) we could produce it artificially at all beit much higher prices until a realistic alternitive can be created by private buisness.


That will eventually happen. The argument that the site makes is that by the time it becomes worthwhile to do so, the energy required to construct the alternatives will be so expensive as to make it nearly impossible. .

What, how so?

Are you saying that Fission and coal power would not be availabe?

We have enough coal to last for the next 250 years in the US a lone. We have enough Uranium for an even more significant ammount of time.

If oil and natural gas were to dissappear tommorow we could simply build more nuclear and coal fire power plants!

Semper Fi
14 Aug 04,, 21:27
Im not voting for either one its pretty pathetic when those 2 are your only choices i think who ever your vote for the US is getting screwed i just hope who ever wins doesnt weakend the military or the economy even more.

Praxus
14 Aug 04,, 22:07
What is the point of not voting?

If you agree that one is less evil then the other, then wouldn't the logical thing to do is to vote for the lesser evil?

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 00:37
i just hope who ever wins doesnt weakend the military or the economy even more.
If those are your primary concern, then the choice should be simple.

phalanx
15 Aug 04,, 01:49
Christine you need to research the tax distribution/burden before you quote liberal propaganda. You can't argue against Numbers!!!!!

___________________

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040407bb.htm

Just in time for tax season, the Congressional Budget Office has released new data on distribution of the tax burden. Contrary to popular belief, they show that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time and that the Bush tax cut in 2001 barely kept it from rising further.



A convenient starting point is 1984. The Reagan tax cut was then fully phased in (which reduced the top statutory income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent) and the 1983 Social Security tax increase had already taken effect (which raised the OASI tax rate from a combined 9.5 percent to 10.4 percent). In that year, those in the bottom quintile (20 percent of households) paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.



Those in the top quintile paid 24.5 percent, the top 10 percent paid 25.2 percent, the top 5 percent paid 26.1 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent. Thus, those at the top paid about two and a half times more than those at the bottom.



Fast forward to 2001 (latest year in the CBO study). The top statutory income tax rate has fallen to 39.1 percent and the total payroll tax rate has risen from 14 percent to 15.3 percent. If one knew these figures in 1984, almost all economists would have projected a sharp decline in taxes paid by the rich and an increase in those paid by the poor.



In fact, the data show that those in the bottom quintile are only paying about half what they did 20 years ago: 5.4 percent. This is down from 6.4 percent just the year before, owing to the Bush tax cut.



Those in the top quintile did pay a little less in 2001 than they did in 2000: 26.8 percent versus 28 percent. But this is still well above the average tax rate they paid in 1984. Interestingly, those at the very top saw virtually no cut at all, even though liberals constantly say that they got the lion's share of the 2001 tax cut. Between 2000 and 2001, those in the top 10 percent of households saw a drop from 29.7 percent to 28.6 percent and those in the top 5 percent saw a decline from 31.1 percent to 30.1, but those in the top 1 percent saw their effective tax rate virtually unchanged: 33.2 percent versus 33 percent.



All of those in the middle 3 quintiles paid less in 2001 than they paid in 1984. In other words, between 1984 and 2001 average tax rates for the wealthy substantially increased, while at least 80 percent of households paid considerably less. Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about 6 times more than the poor.



Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2 percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.



In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those in the middle paid about a third less.

phalanx
15 Aug 04,, 01:55
Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;

Bush signed the largest education funding bill in history, which was also written by Ted Kennedy. The problem is not funding it is with how states disburse money for education. There is a severe problem right now with regards to that.

Democrats should be very happy with the Bill the president signed. I know that I and many other republicans did not agree with what he did.

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 02:28
Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about 6 times more than the poor.
Descrimination, for any reason, is wrong. The Dems shout about class warfare, well here it really is. I'm for the national sales tax instead of the income tax, it's alot more fair and it promotes economic growth instead of hampering it.

ZFBoxcar
15 Aug 04,, 02:43
I'm for the national sales tax instead of the income tax, it's alot more fair and it promotes economic growth instead of hampering it.

Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 02:52
Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.
Actually our proposed sales tax does, and it provides a rebate automaticly up to poverty level. The tax is also only on new end level purchases, allowing companies to opperate tax free, reducing costs dramaticly and promoting further investment. It doesn't work as well as no tax, but it's better than what we got, and a million times more fair. Since I come from a country of equals, fairness counts alot to me.


"The FairTax
Imposes a 23% (tax-inclusive) sales tax on the purchase of new goods and services in the U.S.

Lets workers keep their entire paycheck and retirees keep their entire pension.

Abolishes the IRS and ends all audits of individual taxpayers.

Replaces the federal income tax. Frees individuals from ever filing a tax return again.

Replaces all payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Current Social Security and Medicare benefits would not change.

Replaces corporate and self-employment taxes.

Eliminates all hidden federal taxes.

Provides a universal rebate equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities.

Replaces all estate, gift, and capital gains taxes.

Dramatically lowers tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans.

Closes all tax loopholes.

Brings accountability to tax policy.

Lets American-made products compete fairly.

http://www.scrapthecode.com/facts.htm

There's a link to the actual bill there also.

Praxus
15 Aug 04,, 02:59
Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.
__________________

So I suppose looting the money before you get to spend it promotes economic growth? :rolleyes:

Christine
15 Aug 04,, 03:01
[QUOTE=M21Sniper]The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

No I am not a socialist in anyway or shape. If you want me to label my beliefs, I guess I consider myself as a person who believes in Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights (not the rights of terrorists or criminals. I believe that military men and women's rights are included; their rights are and have been violated thousand times too. So when I say “Human Rights” the innocent are included and the guilty ones are excluded. Don’t tell me Human Rights is about defending terrorists, because some idiots may be using such platform for their own crooked objectives but I am not one of them). Our country has fought and is fighting for the very principles I just mentioned. I also believe that as Americans we have to support the mission that we have embarked on in the Middle East; most importantly we have to support our troops and our Commander in Chief. On the other hand, most of us fail to see at times that we have the obligation to question our current Administration simply because a lot is at stake. Additionally, it is election year and we have to be united to make sure that our country is represented by the right people. If we fail to choose the right person, we will fail as a nation. Last but not least, as how I put it before, this is not about taking sides. If I already knew who was the best option I would have not asked for all of your opinions. I didn't know the facts that you listed though, and thank you for sharing them with me. The fact that disturbs me the most is about the picture you say hangs in the Vietnamese museum. I also agree with you that Kerry flip-flops many times and that's why I included it on my post. Do we want a flip-flopper? I don't think we have the luxury of doing that right now but I still don't know which one is the best option, because the question remains: Do we have to keep on sacrificing our men and women in Iraq? That is actually one of my biggest concerns; a lot of kids are losing their parents because it has become our moral obligation to free Iraq...since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 03:04
since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?
Removing tyrants from power is allways in our best intrest.

Christine
15 Aug 04,, 03:14
[QUOTE=mtnbiker]now back to your regularly scheduled programming..... ;)

Thank you MTNBIKER, you understood my question, some of your facts straigtened some of my doubts about Bush. :)

Bill
15 Aug 04,, 03:45
Bush, for all his stammered speaking and ineptitude truly believes that this is a war for our way of life. I believe that without question.

Kerry....well if he'd stop switching his position every 1.5 seconds, we might even have some remote clue what to believe that comes out of his mouth- but he doesn't.
He changes his mind when the wind shifts.

There is also that whole hero of the enemy, war crimes, and fake awards thing that troubles me juuuuuuuuuuuuuust a little too.

Kerry is one of the most liberal of all the left's senators. That's the one thing he's been solidly consistent in.
He would turn this country into his version of socailist Europe.

Praxus
15 Aug 04,, 04:02
No I am not a socialist in anyway or shape. If you want me to label my beliefs, I guess I consider myself as a person who believes in Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights (not the rights of terrorists or criminals. I believe that military men and women's rights are included; their rights are and have been violated thousand times too. So when I say “Human Rights” the innocent are included and the guilty ones are excluded. Don’t tell me Human Rights is about defending terrorists, because some idiots may be using such platform for their own crooked objectives but I am not one of them).

You obviously are one if you believe in Nationalized Healthcare!

There is but one set of rights and they are individual rights. Human Rights as declared by the UN is a farce.

"their rights are and have been violated thousand times too."

Blame that on the dictators and islamofascists not someone fullfiling his obligation to defend the United States.


That is actually one of my biggest concerns; a lot of kids are losing their parents because it has become our moral obligation to free Iraq...since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?

Why is invading Iraq not in our interest?

Semper Fi
15 Aug 04,, 04:08
What is the point of not voting?

If you agree that one is less evil then the other, then wouldn't the logical thing to do is to vote for the lesser evil?

Why vote if you dont like any of the choices im not going to give my vote to someone that i dont think deserves my vote i really dont like what bush and kerry stand for so i cant vote for either one i dislike both of them equally.

Praxus
15 Aug 04,, 04:12
Why vote if you dont like any of the choices im not going to give my vote to someone that i dont think deserves my vote i really dont like what bush and kerry stand for so i cant vote for either one i dislike both of them equally.

Why do you dislike them both equaly? What is the reasoning behind this?

Semper Fi
15 Aug 04,, 04:33
Why do you dislike them both equaly? What is the reasoning behind this?

My reasons i dont like bush is because of the situation its not going to well over their in Iraq we lost too many troops over their for a country that supposily was gonna be happy with us for "liberating them" from Saddam and the our economy isnt doing to well as for kerry he is a flip flopper he believes in something then all of sudden he is against it how can you vote for someone who doesnt stand by what he believes in.

Officer of Engineers
15 Aug 04,, 04:44
My reasons i dont like bush is because of the situation its not going to well over their in Iraq we lost too many troops over their for a country that supposily was gonna be happy with us for "liberating them" from Saddam

Although Bush is responsible for the Iraqi mess, it ain't his fault. That one belong squarely on Rumsfeld.

Semper Fi
15 Aug 04,, 04:55
Although Bush is responsible for the Iraqi mess, it ain't his fault. That one belong squarely on Rumsfeld.

Yeah but who hired him? Bush is responsible he hired rumsfeld i somewhat agree the rumsfeld is huge part of the problem but if bush didnt appoint him Secretary of Defense we wouldnt have that mess in Iraq.

Christine
15 Aug 04,, 05:09
[QUOTE=Praxus]You obviously are one if you believe in Nationalized Healthcare!

Praxus with all due respect don't use my words out of context. If you don't remember what I wrote initially then please read it one more time. I never said I believe in Nationalized Health Care first of all. Secondly, all I did was to write down the arguments that both republicans and democrats have pointed out during their campaigns ( that is why I even mentioned the argument that Democrats have made about our health care system, but while we are at it-let me tell you something: some people don't have the means to access health care so according to your point of view, we should just let all Americans that don't have the money to die). And seriously I don't understand what you are talking about when you say we should blame it on their dictators and “islamo-fascists”...when someone from our military becomes a POW is the scenario I had more in mind when I spoke about Human Rights...I don't think that the United Nations declared Human Rights as a farce because I don't think any organization would go against itself. Moreover, Human Rights are not only in the United Nations. Human Rights are everywhere, in the States we call them "Civil Rights & Liberties".
Last but not least, my question still has not been answered. Forget the invasion, are you saying that all the casualties we have had and will still have are for our own best interests? When an U.S. soldier dies I think is more for the benefits and interests of terrorism. No one can repay a wife or a kid for the loss of their husband and father...if you tell the families of those men and women that they made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of Iraq(who cares about Iraq and their people, not when we are the affected ones) ...some of them may not be relieved and happy. I am sure all they would prefer is for their husband or father to be back home and safe. Something is lost and nothing can replace it. It is not fair or just, that is all I am saying. However, I know justice and what is right don’t matter or count, not when it gets in the way of politics.

I am sure you believe that those who don’t go along with what decisions are being made in the White House are just simply socialists and are unpatriotic- too bad but the good news is that not everyone feels the way you do. Finally, you can call me whatever you want, if you think I am a socialist because I don't follow and go along blindly with whatever our Administration decides then so be it. The good thing is that I know who I am and don't have to rely on your points of view.

Confed999
15 Aug 04,, 05:23
However, I know justice and what is right don’t matter or count, not when it gets in the way of politics.
I say the same thing, but I say it to explain why it took so long to remove Saddam. A new free nation in the Middle East would be a huge benefit for everyone except the mullahs. If the Iraqis want it enough, and it looks like many of them do, it will happen, and no matter what anyone else says America can say it was critical to giving them that chance. If it were you living that way, would you want the chance? I sure would, but that's just me. ;)

ZFBoxcar
15 Aug 04,, 05:27
Christine, even though I agree with some of your political arguements, your characterization of Praxus is wrong. First of all, he doesn't like Bush. Second, he is not calling you a socialist for disagreeing with the President (who he disagrees with too), he is calling you one because he thought you believed in National Health Care, which is a socialist mechanism.

Officer of Engineers
15 Aug 04,, 06:03
As I read this thread, the terrifying thought that the Americans here are about to choose the next Leader of the Free World and I have absolutely no say in the matter.

Bill
15 Aug 04,, 07:11
"Although Bush is responsible for the Iraqi mess, it ain't his fault. That one belong squarely on Rumsfeld."

I would argue it's Saddam's fault...but that would be too obvious. ;)

Colonel, who would you vote for if you were an American?

phalanx
15 Aug 04,, 07:20
As I read this thread, the terrifying thought that the Americans here are about to choose the next Leader of the Free World and I have absolutely no say in the matter.

rofl :biggrin:

I agree with you on that, even though I'm a US citizen.

This election is about 1 thing only, which guy can best put the assets of the United States in play. The free world is now at war with radical islamic idealism, let nobody get politically correct here because the facts are plain and simple. If the President, whoever they might be, decides to take Bush's proactive approach and seek Islamic Terrorists out in their own countries then we undoubtedly will enflame the situation and make it worse. However if we do nothing the same will happen AND has happened in that we will still be hated just the same.

I personally regard this "war on terror" as the modern crusades. Nothing but nothing is gonna stop it until alot more blood has been spilled. I fear that is the truth but god willing it's not.

Bill
15 Aug 04,, 07:37
"My reasons i dont like bush is because of the situation its not going to well over their in Iraq we lost too many troops over their for a country that supposily was gonna be happy with us for "liberating them" from Saddam and the our economy isnt doing to well as for kerry he is a flip flopper he believes in something then all of sudden he is against it how can you vote for someone who doesnt stand by what he believes in."

I want to remind you of some Marine history, in light of your statement and your chosen screen name.

From Feb. 19 to March 16, 1945, the United States Marine Corps fought a battle on a little shit-hole island in the middle of the Pacific.

The USMC Invaded this little island with some 60,000 Marines. It was defended by 20,000 Japanese.

During that battle, which lasted 27 days, the Marines lost 7,000 men.

That is 259 dead Americans every day. That's about 1,800 dead Americans every week.

Over 20,000 were wounded on that same little island. That is 740 men per day, or 5,180 per week.

Combined, there were 1,000 Purple hearts earned every day on that island....7,000 purple hearts in the first week of the invasion alone. All told over 27,000 purple hearts were awarded at this little island battleground.

One in three Marines that participated in the invasion was wounded.

12% of all Marines that set foot on that island, died on that island.

More than ONE THIRD of ALL USMC CASUALTIES SUFFERED DURING WWII were suffered in a span of 27 days, on that one little island.

Think about that for a second. All that, all those dead and wounded, all for a small island 1,000 miles from anywhere.

The name of that island was Iwo Jima.

After more than a year of warfare- including the invasion and military conquest of a nation the size of Texas, we have suffered approx 14% as many KIAs, against an enemy every bit as fanatical.

Our casualties have been astronomicly LOW.

For all we all sit here and bitch, our soldiers, our sons, have performed with excellence and dedication and a soldiers unyielding sense of duty. They have inflicted upon our enemy a terrible toll. Our battlefield leaders have peformed with equal skill and valor.

We should mourn every single one of our fallen, we should respect them. We should above all remember them, and their sacrifice.

What we should not do is betray them by allowing a man the ilk of John F. Kerry to pull us out and sit back and watch all they've fought for crumble into nothing.

More than this, let no one here doubt, we are in a war for survival of our way of life. We CAN NOT RETREAT.

There is nowhere to retreat too. We learned that on 9-11.

Some many have already forgotten.

I have complete faith that our CURRENT commander in chief is fully aware of the magnitude of the fight we're in.
I also have a very, very strong suspicion that the senator from Massachussets views it more as an inconvenience, much like one William Jefferson Clinton did.

Officer of Engineers
15 Aug 04,, 14:00
I have complete faith that our CURRENT commander in chief is fully aware of the magnitude of the fight we're in.

I don't. Else, he would have fired Rumsfeld. No heads have rolled since the debacle in Al Nafja. Bush may not know what would work but it's damned obvious what is not working and he ain't fixing it.


I also have a very, very strong suspicion that the senator from Massachussets views it more as an inconvenience, much like one William Jefferson Clinton did.

As a Canadian allied soldier, I would prefer Bush. I know where he stands and I know where he wants to go. How he gets there is frustrating the hell out of me. I don't know what Kerry wants.

Both have a deadline of sorts. 4 more years for Bush vs 1 promised by Kerry. However, with Kerry, that may be delayed 8 years.

Praxus
15 Aug 04,, 15:10
I don't. Else, he would have fired Rumsfeld. No heads have rolled since the debacle in Al Nafja. Bush may not know what would work but it's damned obvious what is not working and he ain't fixing it.

While he is at it he should fire Secretary of State Collin Powel!

At every turn he trys to appease the enemy and the rest of the world.




Praxus with all due respect don't use my words out of context. If you don't remember what I wrote initially then please read it one more time. I never said I believe in Nationalized Health Care first of all. Secondly, all I did was to write down the arguments that both republicans and democrats have pointed out during their campaigns ( that is why I even mentioned the argument that Democrats have made about our health care system, but while we are at it-let me tell you something: some people don't have the means to access health care so according to your point of view, we should just let all Americans that don't have the money to die).

I never said individuals should let the poor die, it is perfectly acceptable to give private donations.

My point is that someone's "need" does not give the Government the moral right to loot and pillage everyone in site.


And seriously I don't understand what you are talking about when you say we should blame it on their dictators and “islamo-fascists”...when someone from our military becomes a POW is the scenario I had more in mind when I spoke about Human Rights...

Yes, so you agree it is our enemies who violate the rights of our soldiers.


I don't think that the United Nations declared Human Rights as a farce because I don't think any organization would go against itself. Moreover, Human Rights are not only in the United Nations. Human Rights are everywhere, in the States we call them "Civil Rights & Liberties".

I never said the United Nations declared Humans Rights as a farce. What I did say was that Human Rights as declared by the United Nations is a farce.

Look up what the United Nations delcares as rights.



Last but not least, my question still has not been answered. Forget the invasion, are you saying that all the casualties we have had and will still have are for our own best interests? .

Yes, and I have answered you.



I am sure you believe that those who don’t go along with what decisions are being made in the White House are just simply socialists and are unpatriotic- too bad but the good news is that not everyone feels the way you do. Finally, you can call me whatever you want, if you think I am a socialist because I don't follow and go along blindly with whatever our Administration decides then so be it. The good thing is that I know who I am and don't have to rely on your points of view.

Believe me, I don't like a lot of things Bush is doing. Such as this national service crap, funding of religious organizations with Government funds, mentioning God as a justification for every damn thing, and the fact that he has expanding the welfare state(in the name of God) faster then Clinton!

But I believe that with all his problems he is better then Kerry.

ChrisF202
15 Aug 04,, 17:04
There is the ABB (Anybody but Bush) crowd, well then I am a member of the ABK (Anybody but Kerry) crowd. And im proud of it :)

Blademaster
16 Aug 04,, 04:17
As I read this thread, the terrifying thought that the Americans here are about to choose the next Leader of the Free World and I have absolutely no say in the matter.


I am sorry but I really find this statement really offensive. The US President the leader of the free world??

The last I recall, the US president is not the leader of a 1 billion free people. Prime Minister M Singh is.

India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.

There is no such thing as the leader of the free world. It is bullshit.

Praxus
16 Aug 04,, 04:40
India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.

India isn't free [yet]l

Blademaster
16 Aug 04,, 04:45
India isn't free [yet]l


And what makes you so qualified to make that judgement???

The last time I looked, India elected a leader through peaceful elections with very little violence happening.

Or is some typical bullshit you like to pull out of your ass and throw it around?

Jay
16 Aug 04,, 04:49
India isn't free [yet]l

WTF is that for ? And who the F are you to decide whats free and what is not??

Officer of Engineers
16 Aug 04,, 04:52
I am sorry but I really find this statement really offensive. The US President the leader of the free world??

The last I recall, the US president is not the leader of a 1 billion free people. Prime Minister M Singh is.

India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.

There is no such thing as the leader of the free world. It is bullshit.

But India is not able to dictate policy outside her borders. The US is, even within India (the Evil Empire anyone? I don't mean the Soviets unless they happenned to be lead by the Supreme Chancellor Bill Gates).

What I mean is that we cannot and will not elect the next leader of the most powerful country on earth which naturally will have a profound effect on all international relationships. Doesn't mean that the next POTUS can dictate what goes on in India or Canada. What it does mean is that the POTUS can say yay or nay to alot of Indian (and Canadian) international dealings.

Officer of Engineers
16 Aug 04,, 04:55
While he is at it he should fire Secretary of State Collin Powel!

At every turn he trys to appease the enemy and the rest of the world.

General Collin Powell was a soldier given a statesman's job. His job is to make peace. And given a soldier's high distaste for war, he will go the extra mile before spilling the first drop of American blood. For that, I cannot and will not fault him.

phalanx
16 Aug 04,, 06:08
General Collin Powell was a soldier given a statesman's job. His job is to make peace. And given a soldier's high distaste for war, he will go the extra mile before spilling the first drop of American blood. For that, I cannot and will not fault him.

I'm gonna agree with the Colonel on that one. Everyone has heard the rumors of the Secretary voicing opposing viewpoints to what the Administrations policy is, as OOE stated he knows the price of war and the sacrifice it warrants.

I will say though you would be hard pressed to find an actual public statement from Sec. Powell dissenting from the Administrations platform. Generally it seems to be leaked information that we hear about.

Also with regards to the United States role in the Post-Cold War world we could start another thread and add up 50 pages of opinions. For an American to say that the President is the leader of the free world is a stretch, yet at the same time its not. POTUS policy reverberates throughout the world.

Praxus
16 Aug 04,, 14:19
And what makes you so qualified to make that judgement???

The last time I looked, India elected a leader through peaceful elections with very little violence happening.

Or is some typical bullshit you like to pull out of your ass and throw it around?

I didn't mean to insult India. My point was that India has made some great progress, but still isn't to the point where I would label it one of the freeer countries on the planet.

Then again I deem the US to not be very free either, so my scale is probley scewed;)

Confed999
17 Aug 04,, 01:46
I'm gonna agree with the Colonel on that one.
Me too...

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 05:59
Praxus,

That's a nice one. I am glad that you retracted.

India is as free and close as one can get to freedom. You have your own way to the goal and we have ours. The goal is the same. No country can acheive it since freedom means being existence beyond repression. So long as their is society, government, arms, laws, etc, no one can be beyond repression or free do what their heart actually wants them to do. Freedom in its true sense is utopia.

Colonel,

There is a difference between 'Leader of the Free World' and 'Leader of the most Powerful Country in the World', as I see it.

The first one, to my mind, is rhetoric. It is as 'cavernous' as 'we will smoke them out'. There is a lot of smoke but those who were to be smoked out are coughing (not choking as yet) and are not out, even though I wish they were really smoked out. Osama is scampering around the rugged hills like a mountain rat gleefully and Musharraf is playing ring a ring a roses and I posted a letter to my sweetheart. While all around the world smokescreens are spouting to disrupt, distrat and obfuscate the quest.

If the US is the example of the 'Free World', I am afraid that the US alone is symbolising it, since no other country has the same matrix in policy and the same matrix in implementation as the US. It is an example by itself. Apparently, it looks like its in a stand alone mode.

Let me explain.

Canada is singular in its way to progress and freedom and so is Europe and so is Asia and Africa and Australia. So, if one compares any of the countries with the matrices of the US (which claims to be the leader of the free world), it will found that all countries are disparate in their own ways. Therefore, while they are 'free', they are not similar to the US and obviously to the Americans (if they apply their matrices), they would find that no other country is 'free'! Pardoxical to say the least to citizens of other countries, who feel they are free and have no serious grievances with their countries.

India is an independent country and has many goals similar to the US. She is she and she never can be the US. Her social, economical, industrial etc difference would be totally singular and cannot emulate the US. If she implemented everything that the US has (which it cannot do owing to cultural disparity and no where near the US in economic or military might etc) she would totally disoriented and finally collapse!

Further, if she followed the 'Leader of the Free World', then she would not be 'free', because she would be conforming to the dictates of the 'Leader'. She would then at best be a 'vassal state'.

That is my view and I don't claim that it is THE view or that I am correct totally. Just food for thought.

Christine
17 Aug 04,, 06:17
A friend of mine read what my opinions are on both candidates, she decided to write me back and I want to share it with all of you ( I was not in the mood to place it as a new thread because it is related to the policies implemented by Bush anyway):
__________________________________________________ _____________

It's crazy!!! For those of us who live in the middle class George Bush has screwed us royally, which brings me to my next point.

I don't think (or at least I have not heard any one say) any American is against our troops. They are always highly respected because they are the most vulnerable. When a President lies and sends our sons and daughters to die in an unjust war; however, he (that is G.B.) divides this nation & its troop. While many have been de-briefed and quietly assimilated back into their mid-America life, the stories are still coming out about some of the terrible things Bush and Ashcroft and the group have involved them in. Also, I don't think that getting angry with our troops for human rights violations can be ignored. Put simply, it is not Un-American to call our troops out when they do wrong. If your child goes out and kills another child at school, you can't just say "he's a good child and always have been....the other kid must have done it." As the global leader, we cannot kill innocent civilians in violation to dozens of treaties and conventions and then turn our backs and accuse those who want accountability (and want to prevent such instances from happening again) and say, "You are un-American, you must support our troops no matter what they do b/c they are fighting for me." Let's be clear: I don't want ONE innocent life taken so I can drive an SUV or for any other reason. (For some reasons, Americans have come to believe their lives are much more important than other people). It is arrogant and only adds fuel to the fire, which is what I think GB is doing (in hopes of creating more terrorism so he can justify his presidential actions) in effect only puts our boys in harms away more. Anything American gets the blame. So your scenario of "show support" is not so simple, though the overall goal may be. In other words, SUPPORT our troops, but never blindly. Whether we like it or not, the images of Abu Gharib will hunt us for years to come SIMPLY because they were AMERICAN TROOPS....the putative liberators. And also, Christine, we must remember that Iraqis NEVER asked for our help. This was initiated by G.B. for divert Americans that Osama has not been found and to finish the Bush legacy. The claim that "everyone ask for our help, then just turns their back" cannot hold true here.
__________________________________________________ ____

Can't wait.... :rolleyes:

ZFBoxcar
17 Aug 04,, 06:25
Ray, national independence is not the same thing as individual freedom. I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom? I'm not talking about India, but the point is not to confuse "independence" with "freedom" A so-called vassal state can still be free, even if its not independent (and following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime). If Canada became an oppressive dicatorship I would like to have India invade and implement its laws on Canada. Foreign leadership does not always have to mean oppression.

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 04,, 06:36
Sir,

My apologies but you're talking to an old dog who has not learned new tricks. "Free World" has been drummed into my head as the NATO countries and the US is undoubtly our leader.

Christine,

As a former Officer of an Allied army, I can assure you that your soldiers hold themselves more accountable than you ever imagine. The USArmy went after Abu Gharib with no holds bar. Relatively speaking what happenned at Abu Gharib is child's play compared to the PoW courses that I've been on. No non-Western army would think anything out of the ordinary here. Abu Gharib is an issue because the USArmy made it an issue and that should serve to reassue you of your soldiers' professionalism.

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 07:12
Folks,

Sorry I didn't realise so quick reactions.

I changed (minor) the above post first and then when it opened I realised that you all have responded.

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 08:25
Ray, national independence is not the same thing as individual freedom. I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom? I'm not talking about India, but the point is not to confuse "independence" with "freedom" A so-called vassal state can still be free, even if its not independent (and following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime). If Canada became an oppressive dicatorship I would like to have India invade and implement its laws on Canada. Foreign leadership does not always have to mean oppression.

This post is from the academic point of view.

>>I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom?

Then, the bottom-line is merely that it is a matter of convenience. Then, what's all this about giving "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq? Then
1. What is the exact meaning of 'Free World'? Dies it mean Dictatorships are acceptable because they toe the line but suppress their citizens? There is no end to that as far as the US is concerned.
2. What is this Freedom and Democracy we are taking about?

Are you suggesting that when Iraq gassed, it was OK. Rumsfeld himself visited. Are you suggesting that suddenly the people found their conscience?? What is the psychology that took them that long? Were they plumb dumb? Are you suggesting that?

Vassal means:

1. a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenant.
2. a subordinate, subject, servant, slave.

A vassal state means instead of ‘person’ substitute ‘state’. The dictionary meaning does not suggest a vassal to either free or pursuing democracy. Rather odd to be that as is being suggested that a vassal is free and also in bondage!

>> following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime

It does. A nation must follow her national interest. The suggestion that it’s being free to be a vassal (follower) and then decides to break the bondage is to be free!

Under no circumstance will I condone if India invade any country just because the Indian govt decides a country is being oppressed. Let the people of that country decide. If the world community decides a country is being oppressed and want our help, we will do it only then.

What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander is my way of looking at things.

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 09:16
Christine,

A lot of 'the rest of the world' do not appreciate what Bush has done. It is not that they don't like the US. No one likes to be out of the loop. Its Iraq today, it could be France tomorrow. The only thing is that they have nukes as does North Korea! ;) And North Korea is most irresponsible! Being Asiatic they would rather nuke than cow down and instead fire them and take a few along! There is difference in the cultural mosaic. That is what is happening in Iraq. They are not sad that Saddam is gone. They are concerned if the price to pay is US vassalage! Honour and saving face is a big deal East of Suez.

The Americans can't understand the difference between 'liking for the US' and 'actions by the US Administration'. If any action of the US is not supported without reservations, it is taken as being 'anti US'. This is very untrue. The dilemma of Christine's friend that if one doesn't support the US action, that person is not a patriotic American. That's nonsense. It is as if those in the US are in USSR. Support the govt or you are a traitor. No individual thoughts at all! Same is what is being applied to us.

Saddam is a scoundrel and of that there is no doubt. However, what was and is the BIGGEST threat? Islamic fundamentalism. It was and is personified by Osama. None complained when Clinton cruise missiled the chap or when US unilaterally took off for Afghanistan and started clearing it from the scum Taliban that tortured in the name of 'born again Islamists'. Everyone (including Islamic states) agreed a vermin was being cleared and while all (most) would have liked to clear that vermin, they did not have the wherewithal to do so. If the US did it for them, good enough. We ALL said 'God really Bless America' - beyond the rhetorical ritual! Weak that we are, at least there is a Protector against a scurge that had the genetic makeup of multipying like galloping cancer cells and hold the world at ransom.

But before that scoundrel could be eliminated, the US went for Iraq. That made no sense. Oh yes, he was a person who had seen his parents wedding i.e. born out of wedlock. Yet, he was the most secular of the Islamic countries. That confused most non Americans. He at least ensured a country with no internal strife. You can now notice the ugly head that is rising in Iraq which neither the US nor the interim govt can handle and what is more dangerous is that Iran is now more bold and cocking the snoot!

What was more confusing was how come Saudi Arabia, the foundation of the blasted wahabis encouraged by the Royals were 'good guys'? The root of the evil that the US embarked on with Crusadic zeal was being spared and deliberately being ignored!

Threfore, the question taht perplexed rational minds was - where is the US headed? Against Islamic fundamentalists or meandering rudderless pursuing person agendas? That is a question that is most perplexing.

(Who is taking the brunt? The US soldiers. The remainder are gleefully shouting 'go man go', including the rest of the world. This is most painful at least for a retired soldier like me. As a soldier I can say for the political agendas of our leaders, we die and the worse thing is that we don't know whats up. Soldiers die because we have our duty).

If is very nice of you to feel that while you ride an SUV, a large majority of the world is deprived. We don't grudge you that. You have earned it. We also desire it, but we must earn it. We also want to own SUVs, but we know, we have to work hard if we really want that. And much that one may feel we are 'bums', we have our dreams, aspirations and we will work towards achieving it. Maybe one day we will succeed.

Now, regarding who is a better candidate. It make no difference what we (non US) think. Yet, at least we know Bush. We don't know Kerry. Both are honourable men. We like to see international leaders who 'mean business'. Kerry somehow is turning out to be a damp squib. Barrack Obama was more appealing. Not because of his colour but because of his rhetoric. Very appealing. -'There is no white US, or black US, there is only the United States of America!' Very forceful and very true.

Oh yes, he is black. It will be a long time for them to even think of being the US President! it makes no difference how larger than like the US channels make him out to be. He has to resurrect from his grave if he wants that post.

Yet, thank you Christine. Though we are not material to the US election, we thank you for indicating that US is also 'caring' about others.

It is a different matter that Bush will win.

Remember Bush has an agenda (right or wrong). We are yet to know what Kerry is desiring. Personally I prefer a decisive person than one who speaks mere English!

Sorry if some are offended by my post. You win some and you lose some. ;)

ZFBoxcar
17 Aug 04,, 16:16
Then, the bottom-line is merely that it is a matter of convenience. Then, what's all this about giving "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq? Then
1. What is the exact meaning of 'Free World'? Dies it mean Dictatorships are acceptable because they toe the line but suppress their citizens? There is no end to that as far as the US is concerned.
2. What is this Freedom and Democracy we are taking about?

Are you suggesting that when Iraq gassed, it was OK. Rumsfeld himself visited. Are you suggesting that suddenly the people found their conscience?? What is the psychology that took them that long? Were they plumb dumb? Are you suggesting that?

I'm talking about my principles, not Donald Rumsfeld's.


Vassal means:

1. a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenant.
2. a subordinate, subject, servant, slave.

A vassal state means instead of ‘person’ substitute ‘state’. The dictionary meaning does not suggest a vassal to either free or pursuing democracy. Rather odd to be that as is being suggested that a vassal is free and also in bondage!

>> following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime

It does. A nation must follow her national interest. The suggestion that it’s being free to be a vassal (follower) and then decides to break the bondage is to be free!


What is it that you think I mean by following the US? I meant it in terms of constitutional limitations on the powers of governments and the use of elections to choose leaders. That is ALWAYS in the country's national interests if you consider the people to be the country. If you consider a tin-pot dictator or an aristocratic ruling class to be the country, then I suppose its not in the national interest. And lets say you stretch "following the US" into following them in foreign policy, that's still usually in their own interests because it puts them under the US umbrella in case another country tries to do something to them. But of course they are free to back out at any time. If you think a country agreeing with the US is a vassal, then you show your bias very clearly. If your definition of free includes "disagreeing with the US whenever possible" then you show your bias.


Under no circumstance will I condone if India invade any country just because the Indian govt decides a country is being oppressed. Let the people of that country decide. If the world community decides a country is being oppressed and want our help, we will do it only then.

What does it mean to "let the people of that country decide"? If they are living in an oppressive dicatorship how exactly are they supposed to come to a consensus and formally ask for your help? Usually dicators don't allow their people to vote at all, let alone mark on the ballot box: Liberation. As for the UN, they have never in their history decided to act to stop oppression. And if thats your international community, then either you the think the entire world is all free and happy, or you are content to let them wallow in their oppression.

Praxus
17 Aug 04,, 17:39
I'm talking about my principles, not Donald Rumsfeld's.



What is it that you think I mean by following the US? I meant it in terms of constitutional limitations on the powers of governments and the use of elections to choose leaders. That is ALWAYS in the country's national interests if you consider the people to be the country. If you consider a tin-pot dictator or an aristocratic ruling class to be the country, then I suppose its not in the national interest. And lets say you stretch "following the US" into following them in foreign policy, that's still usually in their own interests because it puts them under the US umbrella in case another country tries to do something to them. But of course they are free to back out at any time. If you think a country agreeing with the US is a vassal, then you show your bias very clearly. If your definition of free includes "disagreeing with the US whenever possible" then you show your bias.

I know a perfect quote for how Europeans act.

"The only thing worst then a conformist, is a fashionable non-comformist"

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 18:46
Who declares 'oppressive'? What is oppressive is a matter of opinion of the people. You are no one to decide because you don't live there. I find the Freedom or whatever Act made by Bush as oppressive. But then, who cares? If the Congress feels it is a necessity, then so be it. If I don't like it, then I should not go to the US. And if I do, I better obey it. Simple as that. When in Rome, do as the Roman do.

Now I find to pay homage to God very oppressive if I have to do callesthenics five times a day and check the compass where is the West/ East (depending where you are). Does it mean I start attacking them to change them to my way of lolling in the bed?

I don't like many things in the US, but does it mean I impose myself on them. No chance. They must live their lives they want to do and I live my way.

Ray
17 Aug 04,, 18:51
ZPB,

You have not replied as to what is this Freedom and Democracy.

Justify you contention that those who deprive their people of democracy are OK.

What makes you feel the US policy is the best in the world/

ZFBoxcar
17 Aug 04,, 19:56
Who declares 'oppressive'? What is oppressive is a matter of opinion of the people.

I repeat. How do we know what the opinion of the people is if they are not allowed to decide through elections? A dicator saying "my people like this" does not make it so. And even if a majority liked it, what if the dictator decides to kill or imprison those who don't? Are you saying that by some arbitrary standard that you set for them these people are not oppressed?


I find the Freedom or whatever Act made by Bush as oppressive. But then, who cares? If the Congress feels it is a necessity, then so be it. If I don't like it, then I should not go to the US. And if I do, I better obey it. Simple as that. When in Rome, do as the Roman do.

Patriot Act. I don't know much about it. For all I know it could be oppressive. The US doing something bad does not make it good. That is the whole point of objective reality. You don't have to like it. You have every right to complain about it. But the Patriot Act is not so oppressive that anybody I know has seen any differences in the way the country is run. Since you didn't know the name of it, I'm assuming you can't explain what makes it oppressive.


Now I find to pay homage to God very oppressive if I have to do callesthenics five times a day and check the compass where is the West/ East (depending where you are). Does it mean I start attacking them to change them to my way of lolling in the bed?

Is anybody making you do that? If they are, that is oppressive. If they choose to do it, but not make anybody else do it, that is not oppressive. But that is a relationship amongst INDIVIDUALS. Nation states do not have the same rights as individuals. If a nation state is oppressing its own people, that nation state loses the right to claim "self-determination" in the face of international pressure to free their people.


I don't like many things in the US, but does it mean I impose myself on them. No chance. They must live their lives they want to do and I live my way.

If you lived in the US, would find that you would not have to live by whatever steriotype it is you think Americans live by. They would not oppress you into acting or living like them. That is one indicator of freedom.


ZPB,

You have not replied as to what is this Freedom and Democracy.

Sorry, I thought you were making a point rather than asking a question.

I believe I adequately explained freedom through examples of what it is and isn't, if you want a better explanation, tell me, but I don't feel like writing a whole essay on it at the moment.

As for democracy, I am only using the modern definition, as literal democracy is not desirable.

A democracy chooses its leaders through elections held every few years, in which the government is representative of the majority. It has a constitution (or Basic Laws as some countries have in its place) which guarentee the rights of the individual which the majority is not allowed to violate, thus protecting both individual rights and the rights of minorities (as minorities are made up of individuals). In a democracy everyone is subject to the rule of law meaning that neither the government nor influential citizens are allowed to violate the law. Another common element of a democracy is a judicial system open to the public in which sentencing is carried out by randomly selected juries.

The reason I thought you were asking this question was to imply that "as long as the people want it, its a democracy" which again raises questions as to how you know the people like it, and even if they did, what about the minority that doesn't but has no recourse to make change? In a democracy there is recourse for people who want to change the system.

Praxus
17 Aug 04,, 20:37
I repeat. How do we know what the opinion of the people is if they are not allowed to decide through elections? A dicator saying "my people like this" does not make it so. And even if a majority liked it, what if the dictator decides to kill or imprison those who don't? Are you saying that by some arbitrary standard that you set for them these people are not oppressed?

Majority vote is just as tyranicle, arbitrary, and immoral as a decree from a dictator.


A democracy chooses its leaders through elections held every few years, in which the government is representative of the majority.

I would disagree, a ligitiment Government defends our rights wether it's the will of the majority or not.

ZFBoxcar
17 Aug 04,, 20:45
Majority vote is just as tyranicle, arbitrary, and immoral as a decree from a dictator.

I qualified that in the next sentence, which you included in your quote.


I would disagree, a ligitiment Government defends our rights wether it's the will of the majority or not.

I said the government is representative of the majority view, the individual is defended by the constitution. If a government is elected, it cannot help but reflect the views of those who elected it. The constitution is there to ensure that the government representing the majority does not impinge on the rights of the individual. Its all in my post, so you aren't really disagreeing with me. Well, maybe slightly, because I see a difference in responsibilities between government and constitution which should serve as checks and balances to eachother, whereas you seem to think government should merely be the interpretation and implementation of the constitution with anything else being taboo.

Praxus
17 Aug 04,, 22:34
I qualified that in the next sentence, which you included in your quote.

My bad!


I said the government is representative of the majority view, the individual is defended by the constitution. If a government is elected, it cannot help but reflect the views of those who elected it. The constitution is there to ensure that the government representing the majority does not impinge on the rights of the individual. Its all in my post, so you aren't really disagreeing with me. Well, maybe slightly, because I see a difference in responsibilities between government and constitution which should serve as checks and balances to eachother, whereas you seem to think government should merely be the interpretation and implementation of the constitution with anything else being taboo.

Of course there should be checks and balances but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the Government.

Confed999
18 Aug 04,, 01:02
we must remember that Iraqis NEVER asked for our help.
Except the Iraqi Kurds, the imprisoned adults and children, a large segment of the southern Iraqis, and the 4 million refugees. I guess they don't count to your "friend" though...

:rolleyes:

phalanx
18 Aug 04,, 06:00
Ray with regards to your question or thought about why the US went to Iraq and not Iran or Saudi Arabia. Thats a massive topic that would lead to some great debating imo.

Personally i feel the iraqi war was a just one even w/o WMD. There is to be discussed though whether it hurts or helps the war against islamic fundamentalism which needs to be kept on the front burner so to speak. I feel that the Bush Admin. recognized a need to entrench itself in teh middle east and taking out Saddam was the best option. I would of been just as happy going to Iran first but getting the american populace on board would have been nearly impossible. So back to the point i think the Bush administration had to move on somebody over there or risk having no hand to play with in the future.
We have opened an entire can of worms as Ray stated with regards to Iraq being in a sense "open" to the world and its pressures due to saddam being ousted. But the fight has to be somewhere, sad as that sounds. We just can't let 9/11 happen to us again. We work to hard for our freedoms, values, way of life just to sit idly by and wait for someone to take it from us.

And there's no question that this will enflame more islamic militants and even some of our allies. Truly there is no golden high road that can be taken here.

I believe the Western and Free world just doesnt have the capacity to understand the level of hatred the terrorists have for us. It's only a few years since 9/11 and its almost as if we purposely block out reality in a pursuit for a sense of normalcy that lends itself to our values.

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 04,, 06:29
To the Brigadier,

Sir,

If I may. The Terms of Surrender of the Kuwait War were written by the US and approved by the UN. It is within the US's right to read those terms as they wish. The UN has absolutely no say in the matter, no matter what the UNSC wants to say.

Those terms were violated by Saddam, even by Blix's own assertion. The UN just did not give approval to the US's actions. Also, it lacked the right to disapprove the US's actions. This is not the first time this has happened - to either the US, my country, nor yours. And everybody else in the Permenant 5.

Those violations, each by themselves, were small but added up, they point to a direction to which I would have declared war.

ZFBoxcar,

Every country on this planet is a democrazy. People vote either by ballot or by bullet.

ZFBoxcar
18 Aug 04,, 06:49
Every country on this planet is a democrazy. People vote either by ballot or by bullet.

yeah but in a country where you vote by the bullet, not everybody gets to vote! In those countries, we should give everyone a gun and an equal amount of ammunition! Its only fair.

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 04,, 06:53
yeah but in a country where you vote by the bullet, not everybody gets to vote! In those countries, we should give everyone a gun and an equal amount of ammunition! Its only fair.

The point I was trying to make was that in every country, the leaders try extremely hard not to force a vote by bullet. You can be oppressive but not oppresive enough that your people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to kill you.

Thus, the decisions non-democratic leaders make are at least tolerable to the people he rules. He can never make those decisions intolerable.

Ray
18 Aug 04,, 08:18
9/11 and addressing holistically international terrorism solicits no second opinion.

The logical route would be addressing the fountainhead i.e. Saudi Arabia and the terror factories in Pakistan (legacy of the late Zia, the President of Pakistan), Afghanistan and Iran (the fountainhead of Shia terrorists).

And Saddam and Iraq in this terror loop? Through a highly partisan prism, at best, one could struggle to establish a remote chance equation with terrorists.

Therefore, Iraq should have rated the last priority in the addressing of the international terrorism question.

The scenario before the Second Gulf War:
1. Iraq weary with the air warfare and kept on a tight lease.
2. Afghanistan groaning under the ‘born again’ Islamist Taliban.
3. Saudi Arabia freewheeling with terrorism and financing them.
4. Terror factories in Pakistan churning out more.
5. Iran blurred on the intelligence radar; producing nuclear fuel.

The latest scenario against International Terrorism and AQ:
1. Afghanistan was correctly addressed. Presently, the effort is wobbling as there is a disconnect in matching the combat punch with the potentiality of the threat.
2. Iraq turning a chasm gobbling up the combat punch available to fight international terrorism. Over 1000 military deaths. Weakening of the Coalition. A messy situation at best in governance and in the war effort.
3. Saudi Arabia has till today gone scot free.
4. Pakistan is addressing their terror factories and AQ operatives in isolation.
5. Iran merrily flexes its muscle and gleefully produces nuclear fuel and missiles!

Therefore, Iraq is weakest case in the fight against fundamentalists, terrorists and AQ compared to others.

Let’s look at the genesis of the US decision to go to war.

The fundamental reason was 9/11. It was a clarion call by the US to ‘fight international terrorism’. Therefore, the bottom line was INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

How come even before ‘international terrorism’ was addressed holistically, the tack changed to ‘regime change’. What has international terrorism to do with ‘regime change’? The war was supposed to be against international terrorism and smoking Bin Laden out. This flip flop has confused even the most ardent US supporters apart from some US citizens. The confusion has been confounded since the brouhaha about WMD etc has proved to be erroneous and fallacious. It is even worse with Cheney’s assertion that ‘it will be found’ even when the US team itself has indicated that there are none. Cheney is the most pathetic optimist and his vehement assertions are not beyond suspicion that he has his interest in Iraq. Sceptics feel that Cheney and his ‘neocons’ have conned for their self interest a simple soul like Bush into Iraq.

By going into Iraq, the reckonable military might have been dissipated. Afghanistan has blurred from the continuum. OBL runs wild and the latest terrorist ‘haul’ in Pakistan indicates that OBL was planning bigger strikes in the US.

In short, by pouring in the military might in Iraq, which was and is ‘toothless’, we have stirred the hornet’s nest and started spawning more terrorists instead of eliminating them. We do not have enough troops to address the Taliban elements in Afghanistan or that evil man OBL.

With OBL free, who is the figurehead and almost the Pope of International terrorism, he continues his jihad against the US and non Islamic countries. And because the OBL is free, US is open to more mayhem as has been established by that computer man’s data (the bloke who was caught in Pakistan). Some have been arrested. How many are still free to add to more mayhem in the US?

So is the US safe because instead of addressing international terrorism and OBL or UBL, the US addressed a regime change in a ‘toothless’ Iraq?

Oh yes, we have a scapegoat. Blame the CIA.

What is the scenario in the US? Fear psychosis with the alert level changing daily adopting all the colours of the rainbow. In short, the only colour providentially not available in the rainbow is Black!

Who am I to be bothered about many American can justifiably question me? That is true. However, when the elephant tumbles, the earth shakes – old jungle saying!

Christine
18 Aug 04,, 08:20
Sir,

Christine,

As a former Officer of an Allied army, I can assure you that your soldiers hold themselves more accountable than you ever imagine. The USArmy went after Abu Gharib with no holds bar. Relatively speaking what happenned at Abu Gharib is child's play compared to the PoW courses that I've been on. No non-Western army would think anything out of the ordinary here. Abu Gharib is an issue because the USArmy made it an issue and that should serve to reassue you of your soldiers' professionalism.
_______________________________________

I am not arguing about it, I agree that we do hold ourselves more accountable than anyone outside of the military can imagine. THIS was written to me, nevertheless it represents how some people view the current administration and our role ( military) in world affairs. What you mentioned about the POWs, no question about it...but whose fault is it? The Media for taking sides and not mentioning what happens on both sides? I have no idea, bottom line most military support Bush and his administration and most likely will vote for him. What is ironic, is that on the other hand a lot of people outside the military will vote against Bush because of our " well being" and to supposedly bring the troops back from Iraq. It ain't going to happen, regardless who wins.

Ray
18 Aug 04,, 08:30
Colonel,

I don't contest your assertions.

I am talking about eliminating INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM - the raison d'être for 9/11 and US involvement in this war against terrorism and the fallacy so to say of violating the military principle - Selection and Maintenence of Aim.

Remember Hitler's fiasco when he turned midstream to Kiev in 'Op Barbarossa'?

Christine
18 Aug 04,, 08:35
Except the Iraqi Kurds, the imprisoned adults and children, a large segment of the southern Iraqis, and the 4 million refugees. I guess they don't count to your "friend" though...

Confed 999: is the 4 mill refugees number from what happened in the late 80's or because of present situation? I didn't know this fact and I am curious to learn more about it. Thanks!! :confused:

Ray
18 Aug 04,, 08:38
Colonel,

No democratic country's army would do a Abu Gharib.

The difference between the US and other countries is that the US can dictate terms and shrug aside any international objections, if any. Other countries cannot. They will be slapped with sanctions and internationally ostracised.

If we had a free hand against the terrorists being exported to our country like the US has in Iraq, our problems would be over in no time.

But we are worried about international opinion and the bleeding heart pinkos within who are looking for brownie points from the West and are also financed by the West.

Ray
18 Aug 04,, 08:44
I have nothing against Bush. I dislike Cheney. He has got a simple man like Bush in a conundrum.

Cheney is a sly coot. Firing the gun over Bush's shoulder and acting smug like a sick cat who has lapped up the milk clandestinely.

ZFBoxcar
18 Aug 04,, 14:22
The point I was trying to make was that in every country, the leaders try extremely hard not to force a vote by bullet. You can be oppressive but not oppresive enough that your people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to kill you.

Thus, the decisions non-democratic leaders make are at least tolerable to the people he rules. He can never make those decisions intolerable.

What causes revolution is not so much oppression, but rising expectations. If the dictator makes concessions to the people, but then repeals some of them that could trigger a revolution. A competent dicatorship with an adequate secret police and using the occasional purge usually does not have to fear a revolution unless he triggers it by being too mild.

Confed999
19 Aug 04,, 00:21
Confed 999: is the 4 mill refugees number from what happened in the late 80's or because of present situation? I didn't know this fact and I am curious to learn more about it. Thanks!! :confused:
Both... Iraqis have been fleeing Iraq since Saddam and his pals started making life tough. There are tons of sites/news available on the web detailing their existance. There is a large community of Iraqis in the mid-western US, I believe. Somebody here probably knows where so I don't have to look it up, maybey they'll post it. ;)

http://www.untoldiraq.org/ is one of the sites claiming to speak for the Iraqis.

http://www.indict.org.uk/index.php has been taking crimes against humanity depositions from Iraqis for years. People going to others to report crimes, is a call for help.

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 04,, 02:56
What causes revolution is not so much oppression, but rising expectations. If the dictator makes concessions to the people, but then repeals some of them that could trigger a revolution. A competent dicatorship with an adequate secret police and using the occasional purge usually does not have to fear a revolution unless he triggers it by being too mild.

There are two modern day examples each supporting our different PoV. I think you will agree with me that there is no greater oppression than genocide. The Cambodians did not rise up (your point) but the Rwandans did (my point).

ZFBoxcar
19 Aug 04,, 03:18
There are two modern day examples each supporting our different PoV. I think you will agree with me that there is no greater oppression than genocide. The Cambodians did not rise up (your point) but the Rwandans did (my point).

But genocide is almost always an oppression of the majority against the minority. My PoV is in regards to the oppression of the majority by a dictator. Genocide, or oppressing of minorities gives the majority populace of a feel of superiority, or at least relief that they are not the ones being massacred.

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 04,, 03:25
But genocide is almost always an oppression of the majority. It is far harder to fight because it does not effect a majority that is usually living in denile or is just happy it isnt them being killed. I thought we were talking about oppressing a whole nation, which is what my PoV was about.

The Cambodians were killing themselves. The Mongols were in a minority in every country they conquered. The Ming in China was the majority when they overthrew the Yuan (ie the Mongols). The Nazies were everybit the minority when they try to kill the Slavs.

Can you cite me your examples so that I may understand where you're coming from?

ZFBoxcar
19 Aug 04,, 03:34
The Cambodians were killing themselves. The Mongols were in a minority in every country they conquered. The Ming in China was the majority when they overthrew the Yuan (ie the Mongols). The Nazies were everybit the minority when they try to kill the Slavs.

I admit I don't know anything about Cambodia, but how is it possible to commit genocide against yourself? I was under the impression that by definition genocide had to be against a different ethnic/religious group, otherwise it is massmurder. I'm honestly not trying to play semantics, but it is an important distinction for the point I am trying to get accross.

Okay, an example of what I'm talking about is the Soviet Union. They took everything the Communist Party did to them. They never resisted, they never rose up...neither did the other peoples of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (except Hungary, but the only reason that was conceivable was because they were a distinctly different nation from the rest and they still felt nationalism keenly) UNTIL, Gorbachev started opening the system up. But at the same time he tried to control the pace of reform. And he refused to call in the tanks when the people of the Warsaw Pact broke away. It was a refusal to be brutal that caused revolution (albeit relativly peaceful in this case).

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 04,, 19:03
I admit I don't know anything about Cambodia, but how is it possible to commit genocide against yourself? I was under the impression that by definition genocide had to be against a different ethnic/religious group, otherwise it is massmurder. I'm honestly not trying to play semantics, but it is an important distinction for the point I am trying to get accross.

It was communists vs non-communists and innocent children (uncorrupted by age and counter-revolutionary ideas) brainwashed into killing the old.


Okay, an example of what I'm talking about is the Soviet Union. They took everything the Communist Party did to them. They never resisted, they never rose up...neither did the other peoples of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (except Hungary, but the only reason that was conceivable was because they were a distinctly different nation from the rest and they still felt nationalism keenly) UNTIL, Gorbachev started opening the system up. But at the same time he tried to control the pace of reform. And he refused to call in the tanks when the people of the Warsaw Pact broke away. It was a refusal to be brutal that caused revolution (albeit relativly peaceful in this case).

If you were to take a look at the entire history of the USSR, you would see that there was a drastic improvement in life before the Tzars and after the Tzars. The Communist Party (as it did in China) and even through the likes of Stalin, who is without a doubt on par with Hitler and old Genghis, he dragged Russia kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

I would argue the collapse of the USSR stated at the death of Leonid Brezhnev, not so much as rising expectation but the lack of strongmen with the will and support to keep the empire together. Brezhnev would have tossed Yeltsin into a gulag without a 2nd thought.

pgmatg
19 Aug 04,, 19:22
Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
____________
Support the Change (http://www.geocities.com/rusatg/BuyForKerry.htm)

Praxus
19 Aug 04,, 19:34
It was communists vs non-communists and innocent children (uncorrupted by age and counter-revolutionary ideas) brainwashed into killing the old.

Just because they are "brainwashed" does not mean they do not hold the capacity to think. They simply refuse to do so.

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 04,, 19:42
Just because they are "brainwashed" does not mean they do not hold the capacity to think. They simply refuse to do so.

When coming to killing a fellow human being, you really do not want to think about it.

64usmc86
19 Aug 04,, 21:07
From everything I’ve seen, read and watched I am not sure anymore about who is the best man to lead our country.

Both main options have their flaws and qualities (yes guys, admit and agree with me on that much). Besides the hard times that we are now living in, I think this year’s election could become a turning point for our nation, for better or worse. If we take a look at Kerry, we can honestly say that we do agree with him that our economy is not in the greatest shape ever. But it isn’t Bush or this Administration’s fault. It has been scientifically proven that after long periods of prosperity, deficits come in, whether we like it or not, it is part of the economy’s cycle or so they say. So we can’t blame Bush for our present economy/recession but we can thank him neither. Because going to war in simple terms and to middle class citizens means more taxes. The following are some of the reasons why Democrats believe Bush should not be reelected:

• Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.
• Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;
• Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.
• Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.
• Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.
• Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.

However the criticism continues from Bush’s campaign people, their biggest point is that Senator Kerry keeps flip flopping on issues such as going to Iraq, sending our troops, gay marriage and abortion. Democrats believe that Kerry is our best choice as Commander in Chief because he is a war veteran himself (even though it happened 30 years ago and the scenario was completely different); he has more knowledge on international affairs. On the other hand Republicans have a pile of Kerry’s voting record- and that speaks for itself, no need to go into it deeper. Democrats insist that Kerry understands the challenges that our troops face in the 9/11 post era.

Our President and candidate from the Republican Party for this year’s election accepts that there is a lot of anger and that we are living in very serious and dangerous times. Most of the time our President is giving constant explanations for every decision we make in regards to our foreign policies.

He also admits that most people in the States care about their families and the economy. But that we are also concerned about what our government is doing to secure our country. The debate should be, for this year’s election, about who is the best to lead war. It’s imperative to trial terrorists overseas before they hit us at home.

George W. Bush believes that the United States has the obligation to lead, through coalition ( but we went to war alone). He maintains that not only the U.S. government believed that there were weapons of mass destruction but so did other nations. And so our mission from finding weapons of mass destruction has switched to free Iraq, to complete our mission in order to make sure that our military men and women don’t die in vain. Mr. Bush stated in Larry King’s exclusive that right now there are 30 nations in Iraq, to support the actions of our military and to help rebuild that country.

Comments: Is it worth it? By freeing Iraq, are we free from terrorism? The truth is that Iraq is in the heartland of the Middle East, therefore Sadan Hussein could have become a good asset for Al Qaida’s network if he would have remained in power. Some may argue that bin Laden actually despised Hussein and such alliance would never have happened. However, Al Qaida’s network is wider than just the ideas of bin Laden…so we will never know the answer to that remote possibility. Additionally we are just beginning; Iraq is one of our first steps but not the entire formula. On the other hand, we should have finished our work and mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan before undertaking other targets.

Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil. They are two men, with interesting backgrounds but have made mistakes too. One last question and statement: Are we going to vote this year with the principle of: “Who is the best man” or “which one is a lesser evil?” (I am not saying that one of them is evil- it is just a term that is commonly used.) . This is also not about turning it into a philosophical problem. My question is simply: Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium; no anarchist answers are welcomed. :rolleyes:

Your points reflect a deep-thinking and concerned person who is perplexed about the future of our nation.

This Presidential election is November is perhaps the most important in recent memory. Voters are faced with two major concerns: [1] foreign policy;and [2] domestic issues.

On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists from Al-Queda managed to capture four airplanes and crash their "WMD's" into the NY twin towers, the Pentagon and the farmlands of Pennsylvania [destined for Wash, D.C.]. The devastating results would cost 3000+ precious lives, and tens of thousands of others would be adversely affected for the remainder of their lives.

Following that "day in infamy," we responded. Although our leaders were ill-prepared to deal with this horrendous attack, President Bush chose to insert our troops into Afghanistan; take out the Taliban; and destroy Al-Queda. That endeavor remains ongoing and perhaps due to political obstructions by Pakistan, our efforts to capture/destroy Ben-Laden have been impinged.

Based upon the intelligence reports of some 15 separate agencies [often at odds with other], we sincerely believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction [WMD's]. We also feared the possible transfer of these deadly devices into the hands of Al-Queda operatives. And if these fears were ever realized, then tens of thousands of Americans could perish.

Based on this information, Bush reacted and decided to pre-emptively invade Iraq. By doing this, he hopefully could remove the threat of WMD's; oust Hussein from "insane" power, greed and merciless killing of innocents; and establish a thread of democracy in the Middle East which could [over time] create an example which "may" have a rippling effect on other despot regimes.

Over one year later, we remain engaged in Irag but the following good things have happened: no use of WMD's on our troops or others; Hussein jailed and waiting trial for despicable crimes; and a Constitutional government is forming which holds the promise for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No question, however, this monumental effort will require years to realize the fruit.

As I close in this initial reply, please understand that on September 11, 2001 - the countries of France, Germany, Russia and China were not attacked! They lost none of their citizens due to Al-Queda terror! And the irony is that if any of these nations had been assaulted due to our policies or for other geo-political reasons, President George W. Bush would have been the first to have telephoned the Presidential leaders; extended condolences to the victims; and then pledged whole-hearted support to eradicate Al-Queda with or without the support of the United Nations!

The United States of America can never afford to subject its security to the political whims of the United Nations, NATO or other international organization who renders its decisions based upon current political climates! While it is definitely wise to seek the counsel of world leaders and to evaluate their recommendations, no U.S. President can ever become subservient to the vacilliating views of politicians who lack character, courage and integrity.

Based upon information presented to the public, President Bush demonstrated wisdom when he led our nation through the post-9/11 chaos; united us to counter Al-Queda; decisively attacked Bin-Laden in Afghanistan; and invaded Iraq to prevent the unlawful sale/transfer of WMD's. While the struggle is fierce and will be so for years to come, the motive is right and the outcome will promote the longevity our Constitutional democracy.

One final thought: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!"

John :)

Jay
19 Aug 04,, 21:51
Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
Oh please, known devil (actually Bush is not) is far better than unknown angel! Considering the fact that Kerry said he'll bring back the soldiers from Iraq makes him weak and not dependable.


John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
Kerry is a thinking man? We dont need a thinking man, we need some one who can think and act! BTW rest of the stuff is Economics 101, you dont need a presidential nominee to know this!

Jay
19 Aug 04,, 22:00
As I close in this initial reply, please understand that on September 11, 2001 - the countries of France, Germany, Russia and China were not attacked! They lost none of their citizens due to Al-Queda terror!
Actually, Russia facing terror threats from Chechenya, is doing the same thing that Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Same with China, they litreally killed all the Uigher rebels, they did the same to the Tibetean rebels.

So every country on the planet will do the same thing when their intrests or nation is attacked.

People say for eg France who question US invasion of Iraq tend to forget what they've done in the past or doing right now as we speak. Prolly France should think about Africa before they accuse USA.

Ironduke
19 Aug 04,, 23:13
Heh, what they're doing in France makes Gitmo look like child's play.

tw-acs
19 Aug 04,, 23:31
In choosing Bush or Kerry, I think it would be best to look at history.

After 9/11 the news said all air traffic was grounded. That was not correct because President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.

As it turns out the FBI has a list of persons that shouldnt have been allowed to leave. The #2 man at the FBI was supposed to check to make sure none of the persons flying out of the USA after 9/11 on these special flights were on the FBI's list. As it turns out a number of individuals were on that list and they were allowed to leave the country without ever being interrogated, all under the authorization of President Bush.

If anyone would care to tell me why President Bush allowed these planes to fly I would appreciate that.

Kerry has been to war, Bush has not. Bush could have gone to Vietnam, but opted to join the National Guard and not even finish service.

I am curious why are US troops in Iraq? And why is the pentagon saying that Iran should have been the target?

New American Century.

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 00:46
And health care should be a right not a luxury.
Why does the government owe you health care? Where in the US can you not get health care? Careful, there was a time I didn't have insurance, and I had major surgery, just by going to a public hospital emergency room. No health care? BS, all I needed...

Kerry is an admited war criminal, appeaser and tax raiser.

pre-emptively invade Iraq
Iraq had broken a cease-fire 12 years before, thus Saddam made the first move, making the invasion reactive, not pre-emptive. ;)

President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.
I know OBL's brother-in-law, he was allowed to leave because of the fear he would be attacked in retaliation. I'm glad too, he's a decent guy, might as well be an American, from what I can tell. He has since returned.

Kerry has been to war, Bush has not.
As of today, Bush has over 3 years experience being Commander-In-Chief, Kerry has 0 experience.

I am curious why are US troops in Iraq?
Because the ruling party was evil, and made the invasion legal.

tw-acs
20 Aug 04,, 01:52
It was called a pre emptive war. If it was not a pre emptive war then why was it called such.

What about the FBI's list of persons that should have been interrogated, that list should have been checked with the list of persons flying out, the #2 FBI man said was supposed to have interrogations on all persons leaving on those flights htat should have been interrogated, he had no interrogations done.

In Bush's 3 years as Commander in Chief IMHO has seriously messed up the United States of America.

Who gives you the right to determine who is right or wrong?

And if you say something about how he treated his people why did we arm him? and why did we not remove him from power ealrier? and why did the US administration talk about WMD?

5-7 years.

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 03:20
It was called a pre emptive war. If it was not a pre emptive war then why was it called such.
People not paying attention to history. Why? Do you disagree with my reasoning above? Feel free to tell me why. ;)

What about the FBI's list of persons that should have been interrogated, that list should have been checked with the list of persons flying out, the #2 FBI man said was supposed to have interrogations on all persons leaving on those flights htat should have been interrogated, he had no interrogations done.
I didn't say anything about it, because I agree they should have been interrogated before/while they were being evacuated. I only know the one guy, I've done business with him several times before. (OMG! I have connections to OBL, just like GWB!) All I can tell you is why he said he was evacuated, and it matched what the government said at the time of the evacuations.

In Bush's 3 years as Commander in Chief IMHO has seriously messed up the United States of America.
Too liberal for me, but nowhere near as liberal as Kerry. From what I've seen of Gore lately, I'm really really really glad he isn't the Prez.

Who gives you the right to determine who is right or wrong?
The truth will sort out who is right or wrong, sooner or later. I don't remember ever saying I could tell who is right or wrong without some evidence. That's why I don't go in for the conspiracy theory stuff.

And if you say something about how he treated his people why did we arm him?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sadly it's as simple as that. I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now, but I understand why they do it.

why did we not remove him from power ealrier?
Foolishly thought the UN would take care of it. That's happening in alot of places right now.

why did the US administration talk about WMD?
Because they thought it was a slam-dunk in the UN. Unfortunately it turned out there were countries in the Security Council, and maybe the UN itself, still on Saddam's side...

Horrido
20 Aug 04,, 03:35
John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S.


And Kerry is SO concerned about this, the vast majority of his wife's manufacturing plants are overseas. Pgmatg, you are deluding yourself if you believe any of what Kerry says. Look at his voting record. He will jack-up taxes, cut the military, and leave us exposed again, just like Klinton, except for worse, because then we'll be kowtowing to corrupt and incompetent Europe. Of course, if you want to follow the endorsements of a criminal like Chirac, who's only reason for being out of jail is that he's president and immune, or Kim Jong Il, that's your right. Just keep in mind you're making an effort to throw away such rights under Kerry.


To Tw-acs...

It's being called a "pre-emtpive" war to skew the facts. Sadam violated the cease-fire terms, we legally invaded.

How is the United States messed-up? Bush is just cleaning up the trash of the past 15 years. He has had the ROUGHEST presidency since Nixon...And guess what, both inherited a dirty house from Democrats.

We armed Sadam to check Iranian fundimentalism from spreading. We should have removed him in 1991, but guess what, we listened to the UN and Arab leaders and refrained from doing so. This is called an "example" and a "lesson," and is the reason we don't listen to such morons, now, because of their obviously stellar track record. We talked about WMD because all sources said he had them, including the democrats and the UN. At any rate, it wasn't a WMD-or-nothing situation, it was just part of the whole. You've just been conned into believing it is. Remember, Sadam violated the cease-fire on many levels, WMD is actually a red-herring.

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 04,, 04:31
I would like to make something ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

The Invasion of Iraq was NEITHER APPROVED NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE UN! By the same token, it was NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL by International Law. The fact is that both the US and the UK got a veto in the UN which makes any move to state the Iraq War illegal void and thus no one tried.

So, people, get off the stint about the legallity and concentrate on what went right and what went wrong. The legal points are worthless ... as they've ALWAYS been.

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 04:44
I would like to make something ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

The Invasion of Iraq was NEITHER APPROVED NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE UN! By the same token, it was NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL by International Law.
Without a ruling stating it was illegal, it is by default legal, right? Do prior agreements have any precidence in the absence of another agreement making the former agreement void?

The legal points are worthless ... as they've ALWAYS been.
To some, for others it makes all the difference in the world.

As to the rights and wrongs, my major complaint is timing. Iraq should not have happened until Afghanistan were much further along. I'm not qualified to Monday quarterback the military operations, but it seems there needs to be alot more troops, and cops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 04,, 05:11
Without a ruling stating it was illegal, it is by default legal, right? Do prior agreements have any precidence in the absence of another agreement making the former agreement void?

Even if it was illegal, the UN have never punished the aggressors and always had to pick up the pices without forcing the agreesor to pay for those actions.


To some, for others it makes all the difference in the world.

If they're not willing to put up, they should shut up.


As to the rights and wrongs, my major complaint is timing. Iraq should not have happened until Afghanistan were much further along. I'm not qualified to Monday quarterback the military operations, but it seems there needs to be alot more troops, and cops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn't matter if we were wrong with Iraq. We're stuck with Iraq. We have to fix Iraq.

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 05:40
Doesn't matter if we were wrong with Iraq. We're stuck with Iraq. We have to fix Iraq.
I know Iraq wasn't wrong, and I agree with the rest, but I certainly don't know how to do it, in Iraq or Afghanistan. It seems all that can be done is to keep the peace until the locals can keep it themselves. The only other thing I would suggest is they fight it like a war, and it doesn't seem they are.

Also, with the lack of anything contradicting the original deal, I still believe the invasion was legal. Personally I think the legality is proof of another deal with a bad guy, and you know how much I dislike that...

tw-acs
20 Aug 04,, 06:09
If it was not a pre empitive war the US administration would not have said it was a pre emptive war.

The USA is not the UN, therefore can not act uniliaterally in enforcing UN policies because it is not the UN.

Why were the Saudi's allowed to leave they did no share the name Bin Laden?

Do you have evidence saying waht is right or wrong? If so what is the evidence and what is your arguement justifying an act or a series of acts and which act or acts would you be talking about?

It was not a slam dunk, because it may be possible to mislead one nation but it is much more difficult to mislead other nations too.

5-7 years to maybe possessing a nuke. NEVER having ability to possess a weapons delivery system capable of reaching USA.

THats some of the intelligence used to justify war on Iraq because of WMD, how is that an imminent threat?

Ray
20 Aug 04,, 20:29
Learnt some new American stuff on this forum and I want to use it even if they are not in context.

FUBAR and well I have forgotten the next! :)

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 23:57
If it was not a pre empitive war the US administration would not have said it was a pre emptive war.
LOL, now the administration is infallible? Ok, it was pre-emptive, because they said so.

The USA is not the UN, therefore can not act uniliaterally in enforcing UN policies because it is not the UN.
The US was party to the cease-fire, and was allowed to enforce it's terms.

Why were the Saudi's allowed to leave they did no share the name Bin Laden?
I've answered that question twice. How about: because the administration said so...

Do you have evidence saying waht is right or wrong? If so what is the evidence and what is your arguement justifying an act or a series of acts and which act or acts would you be talking about?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me the situation, show me the evidence, and I'll tell you if it's right or wrong. I've never claimed to have a magic right/wrong detector, if I did I'd never fail a test.

It was not a slam dunk, because it may be possible to mislead one nation but it is much more difficult to mislead other nations too.
What country said definitively, that Saddam had "no WMD"?

5-7 years to maybe possessing a nuke.
The "maybe" saves the statement. I maybe 5-7 years from posessing a nuke too.

NEVER having ability to possess a weapons delivery system capable of reaching USA.
They allready had a perfect delivery system, an oil tanker.

THats some of the intelligence used to justify war on Iraq because of WMD, how is that an imminent threat?
If you say so, but WMD means little to me. I wonder how many hundreds of kilotons of nukes are pointed right at me? BTW, I live close to MacDill AFB, so I'm guessing quite a few. Anyway, if it was the only reason given, you'd have a major point, although I still wouldn't care.

mtnbiker
21 Aug 04,, 01:11
After 9/11 the news said all air traffic was grounded. That was not correct because President Bush authorized planes to fly to allow Bin Ladens and Saudi's and other persons to leave the country by aircraft.

As it turns out the FBI has a list of persons that shouldnt have been allowed to leave. The #2 man at the FBI was supposed to check to make sure none of the persons flying out of the USA after 9/11 on these special flights were on the FBI's list. As it turns out a number of individuals were on that list and they were allowed to leave the country without ever being interrogated, all under the authorization of President Bush.

List,
It's interesting that you are continuing to post this type of thing even after it was proven not to be true. The 9/11 Commission Report proved this to be untrue and unfounded along with a statement by Richard Clarke(no friend of Bush).

In fact all but a handful were interviewed by the FBI according to Clarke and the 9/11 Commission.

Officer of Engineers
25 Aug 04,, 05:54
I know Iraq wasn't wrong, and I agree with the rest, but I certainly don't know how to do it, in Iraq or Afghanistan. It seems all that can be done is to keep the peace until the locals can keep it themselves. The only other thing I would suggest is they fight it like a war, and it doesn't seem they are.

Iraq was wrong. We told our people why they were going in, what they were going to face, and how they were going to face them. We were dead wrong about the WMD. We asked our people (I mean soldiers) to risk their lives and the happiness and well being of their families for that very reason. We should be completely honest that we were wrong to ask them to risk all and to suffer all for a threat that did not exist.

No one argues that Saddam had WMD or had the capabilities for them. The arguement was that he was contained.

As for fixing Iraq, I do not have any answers. I do know that the US doesn't have the tools to fix Iraq. The US needs another 100,000 troops from ANYWHERE. And it looks like she may finally found them - Sastani's militia.


Also, with the lack of anything contradicting the original deal, I still believe the invasion was legal. Personally I think the legality is proof of another deal with a bad guy, and you know how much I dislike that...

My job was to bring my people home first and foremost. The fastest way I know how is to complete my mission. And if my superiors, including the civilian leadership tells me that my mission is over, it's over. What I leave behind even if it's the bad guys taking a crap in my toilet I left behind comes extremely second of me bringing my people home.

ChrisF202
25 Aug 04,, 14:22
OOE, what is their to say he dident give his WMD to the Syrians as many claim? Ill say it again; if the US cant monitor its own borders what is there to say we can monitor Iraq's border with Syria.

Officer of Engineers
25 Aug 04,, 20:25
I find those reports with dubious intel at best. The Syrians neither need nor want Iraqi WMDs. They have their own stocks. They might share info but I really doubt that the Syrians have the facilities to look after Iraqi stocks as well as their own.

Also, if the Iraqis did transport their WMDs in the fashion described, then Lady Luck was the Safety Officer. I know I don't want to be anywhere near a convoy like that.

But that wasn't the point that I was making. Our soldiers were told something that turned out not to be true. We owe it to our soldiers to admit our mistakes.

Confed999
26 Aug 04,, 01:24
Iraq was wrong. We told our people why they were going in, what they were going to face, and how they were going to face them. We were dead wrong about the WMD.
Their primary reason for Iraq was incorrect, though I still believe he could have projected power militarily as well as influentially, but that doesn't make the liberation wrong in any way. You see, that's the only one of the arguments for war that made any sense to me, and the only reason I support 100%.

My job was to bring my people home first and foremost. The fastest way I know how is to complete my mission. And if my superiors, including the civilian leadership tells me that my mission is over, it's over. What I leave behind even if it's the bad guys taking a crap in my toilet I left behind comes extremely second of me bringing my people home.
I don't blame you for any bad deals with bad guys, politicians make, and break, the deals...

Officer of Engineers
26 Aug 04,, 04:06
Their primary reason for Iraq was incorrect, though I still believe he could have projected power militarily as well as influentially, but that doesn't make the liberation wrong in any way. You see, that's the only one of the arguments for war that made any sense to me, and the only reason I support

I believe you're missing my point. I repeat LCol Collins' speach


We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country
We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history.
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.

You will see things that no man could pay to see
-- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.

Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.

It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
There will be no time for sorrow.

The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

(On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

Our business now is north.


And I repeat


(On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

LCol Collins was wrong ... AND I AM WRONG! Both of us have admitted it. The least we could ask of Bush and Blair is that they admit it.

Does not invalidate the other reasons but when you're asking people to sacrafice their lives and the well being of their families, the least is demanded of you is your honesty and your apologies when you're wrong.

Confed999
26 Aug 04,, 04:44
I believe you're missing my point.
No, I get it, and I do not dispute it.

barrowaj
26 Aug 04,, 20:45
Invastion of Iraq. Its done, whether you agreed with it or not. We've got to fix the country and then get the hell out. I think both candidates agree on that. Kerry unfortunately can't even say that he didn't support the war in the first place, but dems had to pick Kerry because they knew moderates and independents would never vote for Dean.

Even though everyone is so concerned about terrorism, because it is easy fear. But in reality we have far more pressing issues to deal with. A candidate saying that, however, would be political death because people are fanatical about terrorism. I am not a politician, so I don't have to worry about that.

Economy: the Bush taxcut did infuse a little more money into the economy, but the long term cost of our huge debt will really drag us down in the future. We spend far too much money on our military, as we are able to fight any modern full scale war with far fewer forces. While some may be wasteful, social programs can actually benefit the economy by providing services to those who could not normally afford them. Paying for preventative medical care and education for people actually saves you money.

Healthcare: our healthcare provides worse care than most of the "socialist" European systems, yet costs 4x more. What's up with that I say? Is the free market saving us money like its supposed to? I don't think so. Its so much of a problem that many people can't even afford health insurance.

Tax cuts: Kerry's reasoning behind rolling back the tax cuts for the rich is this: While the average person has received some benefit from the tax cut, balooning education and healthcare costs have far outweighed that benefit. So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.

While it is true that the tax burden for the rich has been increasing, it is because their salaries have been increasing. In 1980, CEOs made 42x the average worker, and in 2003 that gap increased to a whopping 300x the average worker. Meanwhile, the real earning power of a minimum wage worker has decreased dramatically due to inflation. The progressive rate of the tax curve is justified in keeping up with the expanding gap between the rich and poor. This is because the centralization of weath is bad for the economy. For example, just look at Russia.

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 00:34
Invastion of Iraq. Its done, whether you agreed with it or not. We've got to fix the country and then get the hell out. I think both candidates agree on that.
Are you sure Kerry still isn't on the 6 month plan? He has convieniently removed that statement from his website, so does that mean he's in for the long haul, or still going to cut and run.

But in reality we have far more pressing issues to deal with.
Nothing more pressing than war.

We spend far too much money on our military, as we are able to fight any modern full scale war with far fewer forces.
Are you saying we don't currently need more troops and better equipment? Seriously?

While some may be wasteful, social programs can actually benefit the economy by providing services to those who could not normally afford them.
Lets start by cutting the wastful ones, instead of rasing taxes, and privatize the rest.

Paying for preventative medical care and education for people actually saves you money.
Except that everything the government does costs 2x as much, or more, than it does in the private sectior, with less quality. You want to know what socialized medicine will look like, look at today's medicaie and social security.

Kerry's reasoning behind rolling back the tax cuts for the rich is this
To propagate class warfare, to descriminate by income, to commit gross wealth redistribution and to make the people totaly dependant on the government. Really it's to buy votes from foolish people who will lose their jobs, and see inflation increase substantially, to maintain profit margins. Every 2% increase in the top end tax bracket, and I have to fire 1 person.

balooning education and healthcare costs have far outweighed that benefit. So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.
And voting for the trial lawyers is going to help reduce the costs? I say they're the problem, who do you think has to pay for all their law suits?

So the average person now has LESS money to spend than he did when Bush came into office.
I have more money, and I have an "average" income.

it is because their salaries have been increasing.
Ummmm, it's done as a different percent. People with higher incomes pay a higher percent of their income. If it were just that they had to pay more money, but the same percent, nobody would care. Anything else is unfair and descriminatory. I personally think the bigger tax burdens should pay more taxes, like people with kids should not get a tax break, they should be paying more.

just look at Russia.
Yeah, look at Russia, and see what liberalism get you...

barrowaj
27 Aug 04,, 21:56
Yeah, look at Russia, and see what liberalism get you...
Yes, I suppose that liberalism has destroyed Russia. Although I don't think that you are referring to the same sense of liberalism that I am.

Current projections indicate that It will take until 2020 for Russia to recover its GDP to the level that it was in 1989. The current state of affairs is an example of capitalism gone wrong.

Praxus
27 Aug 04,, 22:11
Russia is not a Capitalist country, it is a corrupt socialist country. The Government doesn't protect property rights very well and it outright violates them an awful lot.

Confed999
27 Aug 04,, 22:31
Russia is not a Capitalist country, it is a corrupt socialist country. The Government doesn't protect property rights very well and it outright violates them an awful lot.
No kidding, where is the capitalism in Russia? Just because they are not communist, it doesn't make them remotely capitalist.

porsteamboy
26 Sep 04,, 11:29
The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

Are you a socailist christine?

Kerry has been hailed by Gen. Giap, commander of the communist N. Vietnamese Army, as being instrumental in the Communists victory in Vietnam. He is considered a war hero to them. A picture of him hangs in a place of honor in the vietnam victory museum in hanoi. On top of that, he is an admitted war criminal, and wrongly accused his fellow sailors of commiting attrocities in Vietnam. Accusations that he has never backed up with a single ounce of proof.

Kerry is the last man we need running this war. He is the very worst of what an American can be. A liar, cheat, and fraud.

His is also the ultimate flip-flop man. Yo, Have you heard, the Vietnam war is over! He testified in front of a congresstional hearing, along with alot of other people, of which many were Vietnam Vets, at a time when the US was looking for a way to withdraw from Vietnam and save face! If Kerry is the worst a American can be, then what would that make Sec. of Defense McNamara and Gen. Westmoreland?

porsteamboy
26 Sep 04,, 12:28
Forget it Praxus, just another leftist socailist fool.

Miss, you can speak about what drill instructors 'put in your head' once you've actually been in the military. Until then, allow me to inform you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Kerry is a disgrace to the uniform of the united states military. He is a liar, an opportunist, and a socailist.

And he is a national war hero for the OTHER side in the war he fought in.

Miss, you can jam John F'ing Kerry where the sun don't shine.
Sec. Of defense Robert McNamara, years after the Vietnam conflict, on a TV talk show, like meet the press, stated that the Vietnam conflict was a mistake. He may have said that in his book, that I haven't read, he didn't say in retro-spect or hind sight . That indicates to me that he MAY have believed that to some degree during his tenture as Sec. of defense. Kerry got out of the service and voiced his oppinion on the war, as your doing on this board. I respect you for your service to the country, as I respect any military people, including John F-in Kerry! When you join the servie you take a oath, as do the President and congress, to protect the Constitution of the united States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. As I see it, the enemy is domestic and the fight should be in the halls of congress, not the sands of Iraq!

porsteamboy
29 Sep 04,, 09:48
I don't. Else, he would have fired Rumsfeld. No heads have rolled since the debacle in Al Nafja. Bush may not know what would work but it's damned obvious what is not working and he ain't fixing it.



As a Canadian allied soldier, I would prefer Bush. I know where he stands and I know where he wants to go. How he gets there is frustrating the hell out of me. I don't know what Kerry wants.

Both have a deadline of sorts. 4 more years for Bush vs 1 promised by Kerry. However, with Kerry, that may be delayed 8 years.
I have a problem voting for a guy that hears voices! He is a reformed drunk and doper and and has replaced those addictive traits with religon. Has failed in most if not all of his business ventures, became Governor of Texas, I'm sure it was on his own merit, had nothing to do with his fathers influence, right. He managed in eight years as Governor to make Texas #1 in polution and executions. Then the voice told him to run for president, as president he has managed to invade two countries. He claims the voice he hears is Jesus Christ, I think had he asked for an ID on that voice, it would have said neo-cons. Beware of the men behind the curtain!

Confed999
30 Sep 04,, 01:21
I have a problem voting for a guy that hears voices! He is a reformed drunk and doper and and has replaced those addictive traits with religon. Has failed in most if not all of his business ventures, became Governor of Texas, I'm sure it was on his own merit, had nothing to do with his fathers influence, right. He managed in eight years as Governor to make Texas #1 in polution and executions. Then the voice told him to run for president, as president he has managed to invade two countries. He claims the voice he hears is Jesus Christ, I think had he asked for an ID on that voice, it would have said neo-cons. Beware of the men behind the curtain!
LOL :)

Fonnicker
06 Oct 04,, 19:01
How can you say that after the last four years? They say Kerry flip-flops! Well, I would certainly hope so.

We go into Iraq under a very real threat of WMDs. Understandable based on intellegence. We don't find any. George Bush acknowledges this, yet claims he would still have invaded regardless! Based on what? I would love to see some flip-flopping there. How about an apology to the world?

Tax cuts don't go very well with an ever increasing budget deficit to finance an unjust war. We could have had universal health care for every american with the money we spend on Geogie-Porgie's precious personal vendetta and war mongering.

We invade to spread democracy, right? Okay, then why did we bypass the democratic process of the UN to accomplish this? Hipocracy.

Confed999
07 Oct 04,, 01:13
Based on what?
Mass-graves, starvation, torture, rape, murder, terrorism, threats, non-compliance, etc., etc....

How about an apology to the world?
I'm sorry the "world" doesn't care about Iraqis.

We could have had universal health care for every american with the money we spend on Geogie-Porgie's precious personal vendetta and war mongering.
Who can't get healthcare now? And, no we couldn't. Kerry's plan is over 1 trillion dollars, isn't it?

Okay, then why did we bypass the democratic process of the UN to accomplish this?
Ask Kerry, his vote is one of the ones that took us there. One of the few good things he's ever done, IMHO. What's "democratic" about the UN?